Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read the Second time on Tuesday 20 December.

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read a Third time on Tuesday 20 December.

AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 20 December.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL: AND NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL

Ordered,
That the Committee on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill have leave to visit and inspect the sites of the proposed works at Immingham and North Killingholme, in the county of Humberside, and the physical hydraulic model of the proposed Immingham works constructed at Southall by the promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visits and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Abortion

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests were held in 1988 on babies born alive following abortions; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am not aware of any. Such information is not collected centrally.

Mrs. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give his reasons for failing to hold an inquest into the death of the Carlisle baby, who, in July 1987, was delivered alive in the city general hospital Carlisle after 21 weeks' gestation hut died, having struggled for three hours to live?

Mr. Hogg: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. My right hon. Friend felt that there was no compelling reason to hold an inquest. In reaching that conclusion he had a number of considerations in mind—that this was a bona fide and lawful abortion; the reasons for carrying it out were compelling; the foetus was incapable of surviving; and it was desirable to spare the mother further distress.

Mr. Alton: How can the Minister say that, when the ground given for abortion was disability—a non-recurring possible skin complaint that was not life-threatening? Did he take into account the absence of resuscitation equipment in the hospital when the abortion took place? How does that square with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which says that a child may not be aborted if it is capable of being born alive? This child struggled for life for three hours before being put in a black sack and incinerated.

Mr. Hogg: It is desirable to avoid emotive language in these painful subjects. Ministers gave the case careful consideration and came to the conclusions that I have outlined. I believe that they were right.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1976 the Select Committee on Abortion recommended that no abortion should be carried out on a baby of 20 weeks' or more gestation unless resuscitation equipment and trained staff are available? Is he further aware that resuscitation equipment was available in the hospital for the Carlisle baby but that it was not used because it was in another building? Is that not of itself sufficient reason to order an inquest? Can an inquest be ordered to show the nation that regulations passed by the Department of Health and accepted by the hospital service were flagrantly broken? Is it not high time that we ended disgraceful happenings of this kind?

Mr. Hogg: I am conscious of the strong feelings that a number of hon. Members most particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)—have on this subject. This matter was given careful consideration by Ministers, including my right hon. Friend—

Sir Bernard Braine: The law was broken.

Mr. Hogg: The conclusion at which we arrived was the one that I have outlined to the House, and it would be wrong to depart from it now.

Mr. McAvoy: On what ground did the Home Secretary decide that there should be no inquest? This abortion contravened the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, section 1(1)(b) of the Abortion Act and, against all requirements laid down by the Department of Health, no resuscitation equipment was available for this child. Given all those facts, surely this case should be investigated.

Mr. Hogg: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has expressed most clearly. I do not accept that there was a breach of the 1929 Act. The Ministers who examined the case did so carefully, realising that many hon. Members felt strongly about it, but the conclusion that I have outlined to the House is the right conclusion.

Cruelty to Children

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to take any action to increase the penalties available to the courts for the offence of cruelty to children.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The maximum penalty for cruelty to children has already been increased from two to 10 years' imprisonment. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides this higher penalty for offences committed since 29 September 1988.

Mr. Coombs: I welcome the measure, especially in view of recently reported appalling cases of child cruelty. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case, as put forward by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, for intensifying prison treatment of people convicted of offences against children, to ensure that such offences do not occur when they leave prison?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be interested to learn that much of that work already goes on at Her Majesty's prison Grendon Underwood.

Mr. Loyden: What action does the Minister intend to take against the Secretary of State for Social Security for the crimes committed against the children of this country by freezing child benefit for two years in succession?

Mr. Patten: None, Sir.

Mr. Wilshire: Is my hon. Friend willing to reconsider the matter? Will he consider drawing a distinction between child cruelty within families, when deterrence is not necessarily the most significant factor, and individuals and organisations who systematically and deliberately organise child abuse? Will he take stronger action against groups such as the Children of God and practitioners of Satanism for whom the most severe punishment is not necessarily adequate?

Mr. Patten: I know about my hon. Friend's strong feelings about these issues. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 tightens the law in favour of children in several ways, not only that which I have already described but, for example, by making the possession of indecent photographs a criminal offence. It also introduces other provisions such as an appeal by my right hon. and learned Friend the

Attorney-General against allegedly over-lenient sentences. It represents a formidable package which has received an all-party welcome.

Mr. Randall: Does the Minister agree that there is a need for more varied penalties for cruelty to children? What does he think of the NSPCC's recent suggestion that a child should not be punished for the evil that a parent might have done to it? Does he agree that there is a case for removing child abusers, rather than innocent children, from the home?

Mr. Patten: No one wants any child to be punished in any way because of the faults of anyone else.

Mr. Hind: In the light of the recent case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), when will my hon. Friend bring into operation those clauses in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 dealing with child pornography and allowing children to give evidence by way of video link?

Mr. Patten: We have already introduced a provision concerning the possession of indecent photographs. That has been an offence since 28 September this year. On 5 January 1989 we shall give powers to the courts to receive video evidence by children.

Broadwater Farm (Incident)

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to respond to the second report from Lord Gifford QC into the circumstances that led to the convictions of Mr. Silcott, Mr. Braithwaite and Mr. Raghip arising out of the incidents at Broadwater farm in 1985; and if he will make a statement on its conclusions.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Lord Gifford has written to me enclosing a copy of his report. This was an entirely unofficial exercise in which, with my right hon. Friend's approval, the Metropolitan police declined to take part.

Mr. Grant: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the evidence on which the Broadwater farm three were convicted and on which their petition for leave to appeal was rejected, which is of confessions only, was obtained without undue duress, without unfair treatment, and under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Have inquiries been made into the evidence that was obtained? If inquiries have not been made, will he make them now?

Mr. Hogg: The three men named in the question were convicted after a jury trial. That conviction was upheld in the Court of Appeal earlier this week. In those circumstances, I believe that most fair-minded people should accept that those men are guilty as charged.

Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend join in congratulating those Metropolitan police officers who were recently awarded bravery awards for their heroic conduct during the Broadwater farm riots in 1987?

Mr. Hogg: The Metropolitan police behaved with great gallantry, and they will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his words.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not contest the idea that legal procedures, as now constituted, were scrupulously


followed in this case, but will the Under-Secretary comment on the increasing disquiet that underlies this case, of men and women being convicted on confessions alone? There is growing concern that that should not be the sole reason for a conviction. Is the Department prepared to study that matter?

Mr. Hogg: These matters are for the courts. The right hon. Gentleman would do his reputation, and that of his party, considerable good if he stood by the verdict of a jury when it is upheld in the Court of Appeal. Simply to try to go around the back door in such cases is not respectable.

Child Destruction

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average sentence for child destruction under the Infant Life (Preservation Act) 1929 for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There has been only one conviction for child destruction in the past 10 years. The sentence was life imprisonment.

Mr. Amess: Following that answer, does my hon. Friend recognise that many hon. Members are not satisfied that the intent of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 is being complied with? Does he further recognise that—with the advances in medical science meaning that the stage at which a baby is capable of being born alive is reducing all the time—the effectiveness of this Act needs to be reviewed urgently?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend puts his point very firmly. The 1929 Act provides that at 28 weeks of development, there is a rebuttable presumption that the foetus is capable of survival. There is quite clear and compelling evidence that the rebuttable presumption should arise not at 28 weeks, but at 24 weeks, but the House may feel that this matter could be best tackled by private Member's legislation.

Mr. Ashton: While there has been one case of child destruction in the past 10 years, is it not a fact that, before we had the Abortion Act 1967, there was an average of 65 mother destructions each year? Women went to back-street abortionists, ran into trouble, had to be rushed into hospital and subsequently died. Will the Under-Secretary compare those figures with those of child destruction?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly shall.

Mr. Marlow: Is there not something wrong with a society where healthy human life can be destroyed purely because it is socially inconvenient? Is that not happening increasingly these days? Is it not against the law and is it not time that the Government did something about it?

Mr. Hogg: The 1929 Act is quite plain in its effect. The question really is about where the rebuttable presumption should arise. At the moment it arises at 28 weeks. There is good reason to suppose that it should arise at 24 weeks. It is a matter that causes the House much distress and would probably be best dealt with by private Member's legislation.

Forensic Science Service

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to increase the level of service provided to police forces by the forensic science service.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We plan to recruit 18 additional scientific staff to the Home Office forensic science service in 1989–90 and a further 10 additional staff in 1990–91.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in 1980 there were 445 staff in the forensic science service, yet last year there were only 437, despite the fact that reported crime in that period went through the roof? Are not many suspected criminals getting away with their crimes because the service cannot cope? Did not an expert witness to the Select Committee on Home Affairs say that morale in the service is bloody awful? When will the Secretary of State do something about it and put money and manpower into the service?

Mr. Hurd: Investment in the forensic science service has increased from 0·3 million to £13·75 million during our term of office. That is a real increase of 21 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's figures for staffing are slightly wrong. Staffing levels are broadly constant, but the workload—the number of exhibits going to the service—has increased substantially. I await the Select Committee's conclusion on the matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a long period of discussion and consultation in the service about grading and complementing. The new structure has been introduced and promotions are being made to the new grades. Morale should improve because the period of uncertainty is over.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Home Secretary aware of the longstanding anxiety that the forensic science service is too closely intertwined with the police? Does he accept that what is required is an improved independent forensic science service that is available equally to the police and to defendants?

Mr. Hurd: I am aware of that argument, but I do not regard it as a priority. Inevitably, the forensic science service and the police are intertwined. They should be. My priority is to ensure that the service is organised in such a way as to give proper priority to those crimes which the police believe to be most important.

Mr. Corbett: May I give a modest welcome to the increase in staffing in the forensic science service? None the less,. will the Home Secretary confirm that last year the management consultants, Touche Ross, recommended an immediate increase in staff of 27 to deal with the extra workload and with the introduction of DNA genetic fingerprinting? Given that the new staff will not he in place until next year or even the following year, as well as the fast rise in violent and sex crimes, the Home Secretary's complacency is astounding.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman must have drafted his supplementary question before he heard my answer to the main question. There have been many reports and discussions in Committees. The forensic science service is just emerging from the period of discussion. Anyone who visits the six laboratories—no doubt the hon. Gentleman has visited at least one of them—will be impressed by the


way in which they are grappling with DNA and the workload and trying to perform to the best of their ability. I am anxious that the structure and gradings should be such that they can do that.

Rural Areas (Violence)

Mr. Temple-Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is considering to reduce violence in rural areas.

Mr. Hurd: We have strengthened the police, tightened the law on under-age drinking, reminded the justices of their powers to prevent disorderly drinking, encouraged the swift hearing of cases of this kind and made it an offence to carry a knife in a public place without good reason. We are preparing further guidance to local services.

Mr. Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend will be only too well aware of the relative increase in violent crime in rural areas as opposed to their metropolitan counterparts. Will he consider taking action, or tell the House what action he is taking, in two areas: first, the Friday and Saturday evening drinking sessions that involve the young and the under-aged; and, secondly, police manpower? On the latter point, knowing that my right hon. Friend is a charitable man, may I ask him to respond generously to the application by West Mercia police for 40 additional police posts in 1989?

Mr. Hurd: Those are two pertinent questions. On the first one, the Licensing Act 1988 toughened the law against illegal under-age drinking. We have reminded the justices and the police of the powers available under existing laws—for example, to revoke in mid-course the licences of disorderly pubs. I hope that, as a result, the sort of incidents to which my hon. Friend refers will decline.
Rural forces have benefited from the substantial increases in police manpower, with 8,400 more police officers and civilians working with the police in non-metropolitan forces. I hope fairly soon to announce the allocation of the 1,100 additional police officers which I have already said will be the total for next year, and the West Mercia application is well in my mind. After that there will be a further substantial programme of increases.

Mr. Maclennan: How many police authorities are seeking increases in the manpower of their forces? By how much will the right hon. Gentleman's proposed increase fall short of what is being sought?

Mr. Hurd: Most of them are seeking increases, I believe. I am not, of course, responsible for figures in Scotland, but in England and Wales, most are doing so. I have 1,100 places to allocate for next year alone, which is a record on top of a record. Of that, 300 will go to the Metropolitan police and 800 to the provincial forces in England and Wales. Although that total will be a record on top of a record and although it will be a greater increase in real terms than any other public service is receiving, it will not, of course, meet all demands.

Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the success of the experiment in Bournemouth on the introduction of video surveillance equipment in deterring

miscreants and identifying criminals? Is he prepared to consider extending those experiments elsewhere, including my own constituency of Torbay?

Mr. Hurd: It is not for the Home Office to decide; it is a matter for local chief officers to decide, with their local authorities where necessary. I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. Not only in football grounds has such apparatus has been useful.

Mr. Hattersley: Does not the Home Secretary think that there is something incompatible between the complacency of his answers and his own statistics, which show that violent crime has increased by 13 per cent. and 15 per cent. on the past two sets of figures that he produced—a record on a record? That is not conducive to the smugness that he has displayed this afternoon.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has the failing that he is always rather anxious to exaggerate the bad news and to explain away the good news. The good news yesterday was that there was a substantial reduction in the total of recorded crime and, in particular, a sharp reduction in the number of burglaries—a crime to which Opposition Members constantly drew my attention when the figures were becoming worse, but on which they are silent when the figures improve. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that there was a sharp rise in the reported level of violent crime last year and continuing this year, but that as the quarters of this year have proceeded, that rise is levelling out.

Mr. Key: As we approach the winter solstice, will my right hon. Friend comment on the effectiveness of the Public Order Act 1986? Is he aware that there is no desire or intention on the part of the communities in Wiltshire and elsewhere to witness confrontation between summer hippies and the resident population? Will he do all that he can to encourage those who seek trouble at the summer solstice to stay away?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. I regard him as the joint author of the clause in the Public Order Act that is called the "Hippy clause". I am glad that it has had a good effect in his county and elsewhere. The advice that he has given is sound.

Identity Cards

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the introduction of identity cards in the United Kingdom after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: I have asked the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland for its views on the introduction of national identity cards and I am awaiting its response. We are also studying the recent recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Many people carry proof of identity in various forms, but it would be a different and substantial step to impose a univeral compulsory system with corresponding police powers.

Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State seems to be hazy and vague about the Government's proposals. Does he accept that many people would regard the introduction of compulsory ID cards—or even pressure to carry them on a voluntary basis—as an intrusion into civil liberties and


that they would deeply resent it? Will he take this opportunity to state categorically that there will be no requirement to carry ID cards in this country?

Mr. Hurd: I simply repeat my original answer, which met the hon. Gentleman's point. An increasing number of people carry proof of identity in various forms as a matter of convenience, but it would be a different matter to impose a universal compulsory system with corresponding police powers.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who see considerable merit in identity cards would favour the Government initially facilitating the carrying of such cards on a voluntary basis, as once they had been used, they would become acceptable to the public?

Mr. Hurd: I note that observation, and it is certainly a possible way forward. I think that it would be sensible to await the considered view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, for which I have asked, because in the past the police have been reluctant to advocate a compulsory system, believing that it would not really be worth while. We need to take into account the point made by my hon. Friend, as well as the kind of documents that people will be carrying across Europe after 1992, but as I said—and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in July—we are not satisfied that the case has been made out for a compulsory system.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Home Secretary understand that some of us have a sneaking sympathy for the principle of identity cards, but that that is outweighed by our concern about the erosion of civil liberties that has taken place over the past few years? Does not the Home Secretary feel a twinge of conscience at some of the actions brought in the courts, at the complaints that he receives as a Member of Parliament and at the representations made by Back Benchers about the treatment of our constituents? Does he not understand that that is why we shall have to oppose the introduction of identity cards even though we may have some sympathy with the principle?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is getting involved in a very convoluted argument. I do not accept his view and I do not recall such cases. During the previous Parliament we approved a system for receiving and dealing with complaints against the police under independent supervision, and I believe that it is working well.

Mr. Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the all party Select Committee on Home Affairs has recommended in its report a voluntary identity card for civil liberty reasons, because such a card will grant ease of travel within the European Community and will mean that the less secure British visitor's passport can be replaced by a better quality document that will be more widely accepted?

Mr. Hurd: I understand that that is the gist of the Select Committee's report. As I said in my original answer, I believe that the case for a voluntary system post-1992 needs studying.
The question of football hooliganism often arises in this context. The football clubs need to keep out of their grounds people who may not have been convicted of anything but whom they know to be troublemakers. The

scheme in the proposed Bill will enable them to do that, but a national identity card scheme, however draconian, would be no help with that problem.

Carlisle Report (Resource Implications)

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet officers of the National Association of Probation Officers to discuss the resource implications of the Carlisle report.

Mr. John Patten: We are considering the Carlisle report and look forward to receiving comments from the National Association of Probation Officers among many others. But it would be premature to make the assumptions which would be needed for a discussion of resource implications at the moment.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that the Carlisle report stressed the value and effectiveness of the work of the probation service? When will the Government recognise that probation care is often far more effective than imprisonment and allocate proper resources to the probation and after-care service?

Mr. Patten: The probation service—among many public services—has enjoyed a record improvement in its resources since 1979. Its cash resources have been increased by more than 60 per cent. in real terms, and its manpower has increased by one third. We look forward to the co-operation of the probation service, both in implementing any changes that occur as a result of the recommendations of the Carlisle committee and in putting into action the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for punishment in the community.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that one aspect of the Carlisle report is bound to cause grave disquiet? It is proposed to divorce the responsibilities of the Parole Board—as a separate body—from the Home Secretary's decisions. Does the Minister have a view on that?

Mr. Patten: Thus far, we are still consulting. Clearly, it would be a major step for an executive body to be set up over which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had no control. My right hon. Friend and I are well aware of the strong public concern that those who commit serious and violent crime should stay in prison for a very long time.

Mr. Sheerman: May we have a straighter answer about the Government's attitude to the Carlisle report? Is the Minister discontented with that report because it has missed the opportunity to cut overcrowding in our prisons at a stroke by going for automatic parole after one third of a sentence has been served—a step which would reduce the prison population by 8,000 and solve many of the problems in our overcrowded prisons?

Mr. Patten: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should criticise my noble Friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and others for the hard work that they put into their excellent report. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked for observations from those who are interested by the end of March. This is a fundamental and important issue which deserves full consultation and discussion rather than ad hoc comments from the Dispatch Box before such a full consultation.

Mr. Lawrence: When my hon. Friend considers those matters, will he take into consideration that there is much dissatisfaction with the tendency to increase administrative release and to thwart the judiciary's wishes to sentence people to certain lengths of imprisonment?

Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend and I are well aware of the discontent about that trend not only among the higher judiciary and others but in society at large.

Broadcasting White Paper

Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish broadcasting media regarding the Government's White Paper, Cm. 517.

Mr. Renton: We are in regular contact with representative organisations, such as the ITV Association, the Association of Independent Radio Contractors and the Cable Television Association, all of whom represent Scottish interests. Among other contacts this year, I have visited Scottish Television and Radio Clyde, and discussed Gaelic broadcasting with Comunn na Gaidhlig. [Interruption.]

Mr. Sillars: Perfectly forgivable. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sillars: The Minister can relax; I shall address him in English.
Is the Minister aware from his conversations in Scotland of the anxiety that exists over the auctioning of the licences at the end of the day? Is he further aware that the Peacock committee was divided on that, and that the majority which went for auctioning nevertheless said that the licensing authority should be able to accept a lower tender if it thought that that was in the best interests of the area to be served? Before he reaches the definitive point of legislation, will he take that on board, particularly in relation to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) please take his seat?

Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister take that point on board, particularly in relation to Scotland where quality and commitment to national broadcasting are important?

Mr. Renton: I stress that it will be necessary for all those who apply for franchises under Channel 3, the regional channel, first to satisfy the Independent Television Commission of their ability to cross quality hurdles to show programmes of quality and of regional origin. We are in the consultative period on the White Paper on broadcasting and it was in that context that the other day, for example, I met the Independent Television Association, which has already raised many points with me which we shall be considering further.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Since the SNP is now in favour of Scotland in Europe, would it be helpful if that party were to make it abundantly clear whether, given the legislation for which it voted, it is in favour of the sale of STV to French, Italian or Greek companies as proposed in the legislation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a little wide of the question. The question should be to the Minister.

Mr. Renton: That will be one of the many difficult questions that the new Independent Television Commission will have to study when it comes into being.

Mr. Buchan: I presume that the organisation that the hon. Gentleman discussed gaelic broadcasting with was An Comunn Gaidhealach and presumably he showed it the bratach bana in the process. In considering the amount of programme time to be given to independent producers, will he recall that not all Scottish programmes are derived from Scotland? Will the percentage be based on the total or on the percentage produced in Scotland? Secondly, when talking about independent productions in Scotland, will he ensure that we are not planning to auction off only to the national large-scale organisations?

Mr. Renton: I am not certain that I heard all the hon. Gentleman's question. I took my pronunciation of Comunn na Gaidhlig from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) who was responsible for bringing the deputation to see me. Thereafter, I think the hon. Gentleman was talking about the amount of independent production in Scotland geared to the Scottish audience. Border Television, about one third of whose audience is in Scotland, has increased its independent production facilities for use by others from about £40,000 a year to over £3 million. BBC Scotland is now producing 228 hours a year of network programmes and 584 hours of programmes specifically directed at the Scottish market.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland, especially in the north-east, there is a fondness for Grampian Television? That lies behind part of the questions asked by Opposition Members. Is he aware that in the discussions that many of us had with the Scottish broadcasters there was an acceptance and an awareness of the opportunities that will arise as a result of cable and microwave broadcasting? That will make it possible to produce programmes with more Scottish content and more local programmes for different parts of Scotland, because the Highlands are different from the Lowlands or the Borders.

Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. I recently read an interesting study by Grampian which emphasised the extent to which programmes such as Scottish documentaries and local Scottish news are of particular interest to Scottish viewers. There is no doubt that the arrival of more microwave television, as suggested in the White Paper, will, on a local basis, provide great opportunities for distant communities in Scotland to receive more television services in the future.

Mr. Steel: Surely the Minister should have specific discussions with the Scottish broadcasting authorities because under the auction proposal small companies such as Grampian and Border will have no chance at all. There is spare capacity in Scotland and, therefore, there is a good case for awarding Channel 5 north of the border.

Mr. Renton: As I have already said, I have met representatives of Scottish Television recently. The managing director of Scottish Television was one of those who came to see me recently. If any Scottish organisations representing broadcasting want to come to see me in the coming weeks, they are welcome to do so.

Bail (Electronic Monitoring)

Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the proposed pilot projects to use electronic monitoring for people on bail will commence; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: We expect the projects to begin next summer.

Mr. Davis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his humane innovation. Will he reassure the House that there will be no increase in the proportion of people receiving bail under the scheme who are accused of certain crimes of violence for which the scheme may not be appropriate? Will he reassure the House that people who break the terms of their bail under the scheme will be sent back to gaol by the courts?

Mr. Patten: I can give an assurance on both counts.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister have any plans to place an electronic tag on Umberto Fiore who is wanted by the Italian authorities? They have been seeking to extradite him from this country for the past seven years in connection with the bombing of a train that resulted in the deaths of more than 80 people.

Mr. Patten: There has been no delay in the consideration of that case.

Kindertransport Group

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any requests and representations from representatives of the Kindertransport group in connection with its planned 50-year commemorations in 1989.

Mr. Renton: In November my right hon. Friend received, and officials acknowledged, an invitation from the chair of the Kindertransport committee to open its planned 50-year commemorations in June 1989. My right hon. Friend will not be able to attend as he will be at a meeting of European Ministers of Justice in the Hague, but I am pleased to accept the invitation on his behalf.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for his and the Home Office's response in encouraging and supporting the venture and for accepting the invitation. Does he agree that it will be a moving occasion—it will take place in Harrow leisure centre in June 1989—when Jewish refugees who were given permission to come into Britain 50 years ago by the then Home Secretary will be commemorating their survival of the evils of Nazism and the fact that the United Kingdom lived up to its honourable tradition of providing a haven for political refugees?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for the remarks at the beginning of his question. I am well aware not only of his work but of that of his wife in helping Jewish communities throughout the world. Like him, I hope that this will be a memorable and moving occasion to commemorate a time when Britain responded to its traditional obligation to look after refugees.

Criminal Offences (Under-age People)

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has given consideration to

introducing legislation which would require parents to stand trial alongside under-age members of their family brought to court for criminal offences.

Mr. Hurd: Parents can already be required to attend the court with children under 17 and to pay fines, compensation and costs imposed on such children. I wish that this provison were better known, and more widely used.

Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend consider making parents' attendance at courts in these circumstances mandatory? Does he agree that the quality of our society would be best improved by stressing the individual's responsibilities to it? Does he agree that for too long now we have stressed the individual's rights in, rather than his responsibilities to, society?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. The Prime Minister and I have been stressing those exact points and will continue to do so.
As regards my hon. Friend's first point, it is best left to the court. One can imagine family circumstances in which it would not be reasonable to make it mandatory to attend or to pay fines and compensations. But parents attend or pay now in only 21 per cent. of cases. My hon. Friend is right that that is too few; I hope the courts will seek to increase it.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not now.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend agree to convey to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the warm congratulations of the House on his blunt demand that the Irish Government review their extradition procedures? Does she agree that the fight against terrorism demands the wholehearted support of all parties in the House—not the often half-hearted attitude manifested by the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it will give me great pleasure to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have also had a clear assurance from the Taoiseach, repeated in the Dail this week, that the Irish Government's extradition procedures will be looked at again if they prove unsatisfactory, as they clearly have done.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the performance of Opposition Members. It is a great pity that we cannot rely on their support in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Kinnock: The Under-Secretary of State for Health says:


most of the egg production in this country is … infected with salmonella".
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says:
it is not the case that most eggs are infected.
Will the Prime Minister clear up the confusion and tell us which of her Ministers is right?

The Prime Minister: We are aware of the deep problems facing the egg industry. We think that we have a duty to give greater publicity to the advice that the Chief Medical Officer has already given, which I repeated to the House at Tuesday's Question Time. We are already taking measures under the new code of practice of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to tackle the new strain of salmonella. We are also urgently considering the representations that have been made to us.

Mr. Kinnock: Is it not obvious from that answer that the concern expressed by the Prime Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as by Opposition Members, is well founded? Is it not also obvious that £500,000 is much too little to repair the damage done to the egg industry, and much too much to spend on saving the face of the Under-Secretary of State for Health?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows from the answer that I gave last time that there is a problem, and that salmonella is connected with and has been traced to eggs. There have been about 49 cases affecting more than 1,000 people. It is our bounden duty to give the Chief Medical Officer's advice to everyone in a way that can be clearly understood. As I indicated, we are also considering other matters.

Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dame Jill Knight: Following yesterday's statement by Mr. Yasser Arafat, in which he recognised Israel's right to exist and unequivocally renounced violence and terrorism, does my right hon. Friend share the hope that the way is clear for an international conference to settle the problems of the middle east?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I believe that Mr. Arafat's latest statement justifies our insistence since 1985 on three conditions being met before the PLO could enter into negotiations. They are, first, that the PLO recognises United Nations resolutions 242 and 338; secondly, that it recognises explicitly Israel's right to exist behind secure borders; and, thirdly, that it unconditionally renounces violence and terrorism. It seems that all three have been met, and I join my hon. Friend in hoping that that will enable negotiations to go forward within the framework of an international conference, which proposal we have also supported for a considerable length of time.

Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister read the report stressing once again the dangers of global warming that was published last week? [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not hear me. I asked whether she has read the report once again stressing the dangers of global warming. Does she recall that a little over a month ago—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These interruptions take up a lot of time.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall that a little more than a month ago, she agreed with me that there is an urgent necessity for an energy conservation programme? Does she recall setting a target of 2 per cent. for energy conservation in Britain? Will the Prime Minister say now what the Government will do about that?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we recognise the dangers that could arise from the greenhouse effect. We acknowledge that joint efforts to tackle it are required on the part of all nations. It is only partly a matter of energy efficiency; it is also a matter of preserving tropical rain forests, which use up carbon dioxide better than anything else, and of replacing some coal energy production by nuclear energy. Yes, it is important to achieve energy efficiency. Most people are aiming to do that, because it leads to lower costs. However, it is not the only factor, and many additional aspects must be tackled jointly with other countries. The subject is also tied up with chlorofluorocarbons, which can aggravate the greenhouse effect. We shall have a conference on that aspect in this country next March.

Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be widely welcomed if she is able to announce that her Government will make a contribution to the mayor of Wandsworth's appeal for the victims of the Clapham Junction rail disaster and their families?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the mayor of Wandsworth has set up a disaster fund. Her Majesty's Government will contribute to it the sum of £250,000. We hope that that will encourage others to make further contributions.

Grangemouth

Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Grangemouth.

The Prime Minister: At present, I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Ewing: If the Prime Minister does not want to visit my constituents, may I, in all seriousness, ask if two of my constituents may visit her at 10 Downing street? Both have been widowed for a long time, and I wrote to the Prime Minister about one of them. Neither of them will be allowed to transfer from the widowed mother's allowance to the widow's pension. Both have to live on £35 a week less than they did before the recent changes in social security regulations. As I admit to complete failure in my attempts to tell them how to survive on £35 a week less, may I have those widows meet the Prime Minister—so that she may tell them how their families can survive over Christmas on £35 a week less than they had in the past?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that a decision on any particular case is made not by the Government but by independent statutory authorities within the framework of legislation passed by the House. He is also aware that the guarantee that those pensions will be protected against inflation is now firmer than at any time in history, and that more generous income support has been provided than ever before. I hope that he will tell that to the lady concerned.

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much pensioners in my constituency are now looking forward to Christmas? They received their Christmas bonus last week, and are secure in the knowledge that heating costs for the winter are included in their income support. If we have a particularly cold spell this winter, more people than ever before will receive additional assistance to pay their heating costs.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. The Christmas bonus is now an annual event, as it was not under the last Labour Government, when pensioners did not always receive their bonus. The uprating of benefits in line with inflation is now not only annual but related specifically to the RPI, and is more assured than ever before. The heating allowance has now been included in income support, so pensioners can be sure of receiving it, and there is a better severe weather payment than ever before. That is all because increasing prosperity has enabled us to be more generous to such people.

Mr. Sillars: May I refer the right hon. Lady to the Government's political guarantee to 16 and 17-year-olds that they will obtain YTS places? If they do not do so, they are rendered penniless. Why does the right hon. Lady not make that political guarantee a legal guarantee, and thus give 16 and 17-year-olds real rights?

The Prime Minister: In my answer to a question a few days ago, I made it perfectly clear that there are more YTS places than there are applicants for them. As that is true in all regions, I cannot see what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about. He must be hard put to find a critical question.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's announcement of the latest substantial fall in unemployment, which brings the figure down by 1 million from July 1986? It is down for the 28th consecutive month. Has she also noticed that in Wales, which has had 20 per cent. of all inward investment, the figure has fallen faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole?

The Prime Minister: Yes, unemployment is indeed falling everywhere, but, as my hon. Friend says, Wales is doing particularly well, as are the west midlands and the north-west. The position relating to the long-term unemployed is particularly encouraging, with a record fall of some 450,000 in the past two years, and there are more people at work than ever before.

Mr. Buchan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Buchan: In the course of her busy day, has the Prime Minister had a chance to read the statement issued by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), in which he calls into question her nuclear policies and, among other things, describes her mean-minded response to Mr. Gorbachev's offer of unilateral reduction last week as "a bronchial whisper"? Will she shout her response a little louder?

The Prime Minister: I had a chance to read the statement, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with it. As he is aware from the figures on conventional weapons that I gave last time, the Soviet Union still has between two and three times as many tanks and weapons as we have. It has reduced its weaponry by about 10 per cent., but its superiority is still enormous.
We shall keep our independent nuclear deterrent. We remember when we gave up chemical weapons unilaterally and the Soviet Union stepped up chemical weapon production, both in modernisation and amount. Hope is not a basis for a sound defence policy.

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December 1988.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Walker: Has my right hon. Friend seen the interesting and very acceptable news from Europe about whisky: that 40 per cent. is to be the correct proof for whisky throughout Europe? Is not that, in conjunction with the Scotch Whisky Act, clear evidence that this Government and the Conservative party are the best custodians of Scotland's interests?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The recent agreement in Brussels, after six years of detailed and difficult negotiations, mark a major step forward for the Scotch whisky industry. The regulation provides a clear definition of whisky and minimum alcohol strengths for all spirits, including the 40 per cent. alcohol by volume for all whisky that was sought by the Scotch Whisky Act, which was sponsored by my hon. Friend in the last Session. I agree with him that this shows the Government's determination to safeguard this major exporting industry.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Prime Minister go a little further than she went when she replied to her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)? Given that the American Administration is to meet the Palestine Liberation Organisation at ambassadorial level, and given also that the PLO has met all the commitments that the right hon. Lady set down, will she now instruct her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to meet the Palestine Liberation Organisation at that level to encourage the process of moderation that will eventually lead to the resolution of the middle east conflict?

The Prime Minister: We have no immediate plans to do so, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Minister of State recently met the PLO representative because he had already accepted the three points that were later accepted by Mr. Arafat. I agree that this is a considerable step forward, and we most certainly wish to encourage it.

Mr. Speaker: Business questions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take points of order after business questions.

Mr. Skinner: My point of order relates to a Home Office question.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after business questions.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is seeking to raise a point of order that arises directly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know, because the hon. Gentleman has told me about it.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order later. [Interruption.] We take points of order after Question Time. These are business questions.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dobson: I understood, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules must apply to every hon. Member. The House knows that points of order are taken after Question Time and business questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not always."] The Secretary of State is here.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall not take it until after business questions.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, private Members' motions.
Motion for the Christmas Adjournment. It will be proposed that the House should rise on Thursday 22 December until Tuesday 10 January.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, motions on social security uprating and re-rating orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
Motions on the Welsh rate support grant report and supplementary reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order.
WEDNESDAY 21 DECEMBER— Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill.
Debate on a motion to take note of EC documents relating to structural funds. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 22 DECEMBER—Adjournment debates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that, subject to the progress of business. The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 10 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.
Motion relating to the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 11 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Employment Bill.
Motions on Scottish rate support grant and revenue support grant orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 12 JANUARY—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement.
FRIDAY 13 JANUARY—There will be a debate on AIDS on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Debate on Social Security Orders on Tuesday 20 December:

Social Security (Contributions and Allocation of Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1988

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1988

Debate on Welsh Rate Support Grant Reports on Tuesday 20 December:

Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1989–90 (HC 32)

Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report 1988–89 (HC 33)

Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1987–88 (HC 34)

Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 3) Report 1986–87 (HC 35)

Debate on Scottish Orders on Wednesday 11 January:

Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1988

Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1988

Wednesday 21 December 1988

Relevant European Community Documents


(a) 7937/1/88
Reform of the structural funds


(b) 10025/86
European Regional Development Fund


(c) 10308/87
European Regional Development Fund


(d) 7002/87
Social and Economic situation in the Regions


(e) COM(88)501
The Future of Rural Society


(f) Unnumbered
Reform of the Structural funds

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 43-xxxvi (1987–88) para 1 and

HC 15-i (1988–89), para 2

(b) HC 22-iii (1986–87) para 4

(c) HC 43-xix (1987–88) para 4

(d) HC 43-ii (1987–88) para 6

(e) HC 43-xxxviii (1987–88) para 6

(f) HC 43-xxvii (1987–88) para 6.]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
The Opposition welcome the decision to hold a debate about the Government's failure to set up the Select Commttee on Scottish Affairs. Even at this stage, I express the hope that the Government will see sense and agree to set up the Select Committee. It might help the Leader of the House if those Tory Members who recently have been making such a song and dance about their rights to put down questions on Scotland and take part in debates on Scotland recognised that as well as rights they have duties—duties to the people of Scotland and to the Standing Orders of the House—one of which is to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. If they are so keen to take part in debates on Scottish affairs, they should take their places on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate the placing of the order for the next generation of battle tanks before the Government decide to buy American tanks? That decision has far-reaching consequences affecting not only our defence capability, but the future of a vital British manufacturer and the balance of trade. As the Leader of the House knows, there is concern on both sides of the House about that order.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have abandoned all thought of introducing in the House of Lords the Bill to require everyone who wants to watch a football match to join a football club? That measure is far too controversial not to be debated first in this House.
Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect a debate on the Fennell report on the King's Cross fire on a substantive motion in prime Government time? The recent horrific accident at Clapham has made it all the more necessary for Ministers to answer to the House on such aspects as the role and staffing of the railway inspectorate of the Department of Transport for which they are directly responsible. It is not good enough to suggest that we debate it late at night, on an Opposition day or on a Friday.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me four questions about next week's business. I think that he welcomed the announcement that I had arranged for a


debate on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, although I could not be quite sure. I hope that he has some better arguments to put forward than those in his question, or the debate will be over relatively quickly.
The hon. Gentleman's question about tanks concerned a very important matter. I can only repeat what I said a week or so ago, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has told the House that we hope to make a decision before the end of the year. I do not think I can add to that.
As I said to the House last week, the Bill relating to football, has not yet been published. I have undertaken to have the matter discussed through the usual channels, but I must repeat that it is for the Government to determine into which House a Bill is introduced.
With regard to the debate on the Fennell report, I am sorry that the arrangements we proposed for a debate proved unacceptable to the Opposition. It is an extremely important matter which should be debated, but I cannot undertake to arrange a debate in the form requested by the Opposition in the immediate future.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When will the House have an opportunity to debate—on a motion to approve, not on a motion to take note—the important report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure? Does my right hon. Friend realise that we need to take early decisions on this matter so that local authorities do not have to go to the expense of preparing Bills that will be out of order if the Joint Committee's recommendations are accepted? There is strong pressure on both sides of the House to take decisions on this matter.

Mr. Wakeham: I agree that this is an important matter, and we shall address it. It is an important matter for consideration outside the House as well as inside. I have undertaken to have a debate as soon as I can arrange it so that we can hear the views of the House, exceptionally, before the Government announce their views.

Mr. David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman announced that the House will discuss the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order on Tuesday. Has he seen early-day motion 200 on this subject?
[That this House does not approve the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 8th December on the grounds that the Order provides for an increase in the salary of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Health, the honourable Member for South Derbyshire whose performance of her Ministerial duties, in general, and whose damaging remarks on the risks of contracting salmonella from the consumption of eggs in particular, have rendered her unfit to continue to hold Ministerial office.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us on both sides of the House are minded during that debate to raise the issue of the position of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, unless something is done about it between now and Tuesday? Many of us will decide to vote against the order on the grounds that the Government should be aware of the well-known slogan, "Careless talk costs lives." In this case, careless talk is costing jobs and causing bankruptcies. It has caused hundreds of chickens in my constituency and, no doubt, many others to be

slaughtered this week. On any basis of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, the hon. Lady should, by now, have been relieved of her job.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures. I have seen the early-day motion. Whether what the right hon. Gentleman and others wish to say in the debate is in order is not a matter for me, but I have taken note of his comments.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Because more than twice as many people are killed on our roads this week as died in this week's horrific rail disaster, may we early in the new year have a debate on the admirable North report, which details many ways of improving road safety and which has been published for more than six months?

Mr. Wakeham: This is an important matter and I recognise the need for a debate. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the immediate future, but I shall bear in mind his sensible suggestions.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 201, which commemorates 12 months of the uprising, the intifada, in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza?
[That this House notes the speech of the Palestine Liberation Organisation Chairman, Yasser Arafat, at the Geneva meeting of the United Nations, and the declaration, at its Algiers summit, by the Palestinian National Council, of an independent Palestinian state; recognises the enthusiasm with which the proclamation was welcomed in the occupied Territories, and the sympathy generated throughout the international labour movement; condemns the repression by the Israeli Government of the uprising in the Territories, which, in the 12 months since 8th December 1987, has resulted in over 300 Palestinians shot dead, many thousands injured and arbitrarily detained, homes bulldozed and semi-permanent mass curfews and sieges; contrasts the growing international support for the cause of the Palestinians, based on the heroism of the workers and youth in Gaza and the West Bank, with the deep unease of past methods of terror campaigns, hijackings and guerillaism, and welcomes the recognition by the Palestine Liberation Organisation's leaders that those past methods have not, and would not have, forced Israel into submission; and whilst noting the four decades of United Nations deliberations, and the 150 resolutions carried on the Palestinian question, and understanding the deep wish of the Israeli Jewish workers for peace and a secure future, believes that the future success for the Intifada will be inextricably linked to a fruitful appeal to the Jewish workers for the unity of Jew and Palestine in striving for a Socialist Federation of Israel and Palestine committed to the guarantee of democratic and national minority rights.]
Given the events late last evening, are not the Prime Minister's answers earlier today entirely inadequate? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on what practical and direct help will be given to the Palestinian people? Those people have suffered more than 300 deaths, thousands of injuries and arbitrary detentions and had their homes bulldozed and whole villages and areas put under semi-permament mass curfew and sieges.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman does not do himself much credit by making such remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Of course, we share


the concern expressed in the early-day motion at the continuing violence in the occupied territories and the repressive measures used by the Israelis in response to it. We welcome Mr. Arafat's clear statement in Geneva which has opened the way to a dialogue between the United States and the PLO and the PLO's eventual participation in peace negotiations. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would think that there had been a substantial move forward in the past few days.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: In view of the threats to the continued survival of independent financial advisers stemming from the statement yesterday by the Securities and Investments Board, may we expect an early statement from one of the Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of investor protection and in the aftermath of the Barlow Clowes affair, it is important that we should do everything that we can to encourage the continued existence of independent financial advisers? Will he persuade his hon. Friends at that Department to stop washing their hands of this important matter, which stems, after all, from Government legislation in the shape of the Financial Services Act 1986?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend certainly raises an important point, but I do not accept the strictures on my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department. I shall refer his point to them and, if a statement is necessary, they will certainly make one.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that a recent survey showed that more than 50 per cent. of people in Britain are opposed to the integration of mentally handicapped people in the community? For a civilised society, that shows abysmal intolerance and misunderstanding. As mentally handicapped people already suffer from a handicap and a lack of resources without this stupid prejudice, may we have a debate to discuss their plight?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman a debate in the near future. I recognise that this is an important matter, but I do not accept that his views are right. Obviously this is a matter for debate at the right time.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on both sides of the House would appreciate an early debate in the new year on the important subject of the future of television and broadcasting, especially as recently there was a debate on a similar subject in the other place?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that that is an important matter and one which the House will want to debate. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate immediately in the new year, but I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is the Leader of the House aware, in view of his passing interest in horse racing, that Downpatrick race course is the only race course in the United Kingdom and Ireland which does not receive any Government benefit? Will he provide time early in the new year for the small amendments required to the Horse Racing and Betting Order 1976 which has the support of his ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Wakeham: I knew that important fact and as the hon. Gentleman has raised it in the House, many more people will be made aware of it. What is more important, the people who are responsible for these matters will also take it on board and give it proper consideration.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the laws of blasphemy? My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) has tabled an early-day motion referring to the book "Satanic Verses" by Mr. Salman Rushdie.
[That this House regrets the distress caused to Muslims in the United Kingdom by the publication of Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie; notes that the book has been banned in India and Pakistan and the Islamic nations; and reminds authors that freedom of speech goes hand in hand with responsibility to ensure the accuracy of what is written.]
The Muslim community in Bolton is petitioning for a ban on the book. I understand that some members of the Church of England want the laws on blasphemy extended to include other religions, and, on the other hand, that the Law Reform Committee wants to scrap the laws on blasphemy. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has recommended this book for a prize, but I understand that the Library feels that it is not worth stocking.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises a number of interesting questions. I cannot find time for a debate i n the immediate future. There are occasions when my hon. Friend could raise these matters if he feels that they are sufficiently important.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the business for Monday night? Does he realise that there is always considerable pressure from Back Benchers to have an opportunity to debate particular topics? He repeatedly claims from the Dispatch Box that there are opportunities, particularly as we approach a recess. Does he realise that, by tabling private Members' business followed by the Adjournment motion and Consolidated Fund Bill debates, he is substantially reducing those opportunities?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, when the House agreed to change the Standing Orders so that the Consolidated Fund Bill debate finished at 9 am instead of continuing for a period to be determined by the Whips and others, an undertaking was given that we would have a whole day for it? That undertaking is being eroded in two ways on Monday, which is grossly unfair. Will he reinforce the undertaking and make it clear that in future a Consolidated Fund Bill debate will run for a full day so that Members may have a full opportunity to use it to raise the many issues which they press on the right hon. Gentleman at business questions?

Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. It is by no means unprecedented for the Consolidated Fund Bill debate to start at the time appointed on Monday, but I shall seek to ensure that we start earlier on future occasions.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider how the Standing Committee on the Transport (Scotland) Bill is to be manned? Will he bear in mind the fact that last Session we


had to reduce the size of the Committee on the Schools Boards (Scotland) Bill? If he has given that consideration, will he tell us what is happening?

Mr. Wakeham: Following discussions through the usual channels, it would be for the general convenience of the House if we did not try to reduce the number of hon. Members from Scottish constituencies required by Standing Orders to serve on the Committee dealing with the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Instead, we shall be proposing that a Scottish Standing Committee larger than those nominated in the last Session should be appointed to consider the Bill.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To return to the question of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I assure the Leader of the House that Tuesday evening's debate will not be over quickly, given that he and his colleagues have 18 months of neglect to explain. When does he anticipate tabling the motion to enable hon. Members to put down appropriate amendments? Will the motion take account of Standing Order No. 130, which instructs the House to establish such a Select Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: It is better to travel hopefully than necessarily to arrive. I recognise that strong views will be expressed in next Tuesday's debate. I will table the motion later today, which I hope will be satisfactory.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Press reports on Tuesday drew attention to the publication of the Court of Auditors' report, which for the fourth year running has apparently revealed widespread fraud, some corruption and illegal devices in the spending of the EEC. Will my right hon. Friend say when we will be likely to discuss this document? Given that the British taxpayer and others are paying for this excessive expenditure, will he explain why this document is available to the press but not to the House of Commons?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's last question, but I shall look into it and give him a satisfactory answer. I have not read the document, but press reports certainly reveal some disturbing aspects. It is better that the Government and others consider the report before deciding how best to proceed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: May I express the appreciation of the Select Committee on European Legislation to the Leader of the House for acceding to a special request for a debate on structural funds, which was originally requested in November? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the document sets new criteria for the social fund, the regional fund and the agricultural guidance fund of the EEC, which could affect the constituencies of all hon. Members? It will be decided by the Council of Ministers shortly after Christmas. Given the importance of the matter, is a debate lasting an hour and a half sufficient, or will the right hon. Gentleman consider suspending the rule to enable us to have a three-hour debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about arranging the debate, and I reciprocate by saying that I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention. Having received his letter, I decided that action

was required, which I took. A decision on whether the debate should be extended from the normal hour and a half is best made through the usual channels.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the purpose of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was to bring to the Province peace, stability and reconciliation? As more than three years have elapsed since the agreement was signed, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be timely to have a debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree that this is an important matter that should be discussed in the House. The review that is taking place will take several months, and it is a matter of judgment when the best time for debate will be. I recognise that some will want it earlier than others, but we will consider all requests.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of the jobs of the Leader of the House is to oversee the facilities and amenities of this place. Is he aware that when I came here earlier, six large hampers—probably from Fortnum and Mason—had come directly from the Bank of Credit and Commerce for certain Tory Members of Parliament, including one ex-Tory Member of Parliament, Freddie Bennett? One could have got a body in the hampers, which it took two men to lift. They were full of food and booze and should be included in the Register of Members' Interests. The men who were unloading them said to me, "Can we get a trolley?" I said, "I will ask the Leader of the House"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question; and will he make it a business question please?

Mr. Skinner: When we debate the Register of Members' Interests, should we insist that Tory Members list on the register the Christmas hampers that they get from the Bank of Credit and Commerce, which has been described in some circles as a corrupt bank? Why is it that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a chairman. He would not allow his members to digress.

Mr. Skinner: If the Leader of the House provides the staff and the trolley to move the big hampers upstairs into the House of Commons, will he allow the contents of the one that is addressed to Sir Frederic Bennett, who is no longer a Member of Parliament, to be distributed to those who try to exist on Charing Cross embankment, or will they go to the double agent who sits on the Government Back Benches?

Mr. Wakeham: Sometimes the hon. Gentleman pushes his bile and points a bit too far. He appears not to have his name on any of the packages. No doubt he is a bit jealous about that. I do not believe that there is any need to debate the matter. Matters to do with Members' interests are dealt with in a proper and regulated fashion in the House, and they are not helped by the hon. Gentleman's wild accusations.

Mr. Richard Holt: As Dr. Marietta Higgs has gone to court to protect herself from discipline by the Northern regional health authority, does my right hon. Friend think that it is time that we debated consultants' contracts under the NHS? They have not been altered since they were introduced, and time has marched on.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on the case that he has mentioned. Consultants' contracts are a perfectly legitimate matter for debate. They could be referred to at times other than Government time. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House make time available at the earliest opportunity for us fully to discuss the extent of the enormous damage that has been done to egg producers, the need for compensation, and the inadequacy of the Government's attempts to correct a great wrong that was done by a junior Minister who should be sacked forthwith?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government are well aware of the deep problems facing the egg industry. That is why today they issued a press advertisement that was designed to advise and reassure the public about eggs. We are also considering further action in addition to measures that we have already taken to tackle the new strain of salmonella. We are urgently considering the representations that have been made to us. In the debate on Monday night, there will be an opportunity for those hon. Members who catch Mr. Speaker's eye to make contributions.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to make sure that anything for my predecessor, Sir Frederic Bennett, if it is addressed to the hon. Member for Torbay, comes to me, whether or not it comes from Fortnum and Mason?

Mr. Wakeham: The remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were addressed to me, or, more correctly, to Mr. Speaker, but I have no knowledge about Christmas presents.

Mr. Ernie Ross: On the question about the Government's failure to find enough Opposition Members to form the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, if it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to table a motion that suggests that the work that would normally be carried out by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs could or should be carried out by any other Select Committee, there is no way that any Opposition Member who is a member of any other Select Committee will participate or assist.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, Members take great interest in Scottish business. Rather than the Leader of the House trying to offload his responsibility and that of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, we expect him to form a Select Committee on Scotland. It is not acceptable for him to try to offload that work on to other Select Committees. The right hon. Gentleman and the Chairman should ask those hon. Members who are concerned about Scotland to join the Select Committee and get it up and running.

Mr. Wakeham: As on most occasions when the hon. Gentleman asks such questions, he has it wrong, and has not followed this process—it has been going on for a long time—with perhaps the care that he should have done. However, that does not greatly encourage me to take his advice about the form of the Government's motion for the debate. I shall table the motion later today and, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, that will be the basis for the debate. Obviously, he will be entitled to table an

amendment if he does not feel that the motion reflects the view on which he would like the House to come to a decision.

Mr. Julian Amery: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), my right hon. Friend suggested that the review of the Hillsborough agreement might go on for some months. Of course we accept the monopoly of wisdom of the Government and their omniscience in all these matters. but I hope that my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that we should wait until that review is concluded. We believe that it may be a help to Ministers to have some idea what the House thinks about these matters before decisions are taken.

Mr. Wakeham: I fully agree with that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also anxious to hear any views that right hon. and hon. Members and others may wish to express. We accept that the House should have an opportunity to express its views. All I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was that it is a matter of judgment as to when will be the most helpful time for the debate.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Am I correct in understanding that the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order does not include the proposal of the Top Salaries Review Body that Ministers who are sacked or resign should continue to receive their ministerial salary for three months to allow them to adjust to the much lower income of a Back Bencher? If that is not in the order, has the Leader of the House abandoned all thought of bringing that proposal before the House?

Mr. Wakeham: The order that I lay will be in accordance with the answers that I gave to Parliament, which briefly contained the terms on which the order will be based. The order will be laid in good time for the debate.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the National Health Service, bearing in mind that the Gloucester health authority appears to wish to close the Berkeley and Tetbury community hospitals in my constituency? Such a debate would give me the opportunity to observe that it is the Gloucester health authority that is in need of deep-cut surgery and not community hospitals in my constituency.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has tried his luck with an Adjournment debate, but that would appear to be a suitable opportunity to voice his concern.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement concerning the recent decision of the Association of Chief Police Officers that there should be a national register of missing persons? Is he aware that the present system is completely unsatisfactory, that the computer at Scotland Yard is a disaster and that the Salvation Army is doing a wonderful job—and will do so over Christmas—in trying to reunite families? However, thousands of families will spend a thoroughly miserable Christmas because they cannot find missing relatives.

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman


has said, but I suspect that he does not accept everything that he said. However, it is an important issue, and my right hon. Friend will consider how best to communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Before the Bill on identity cards in football grounds is introduced, may we have an early debate on a national scheme of voluntary identity cards so that football clubs, pubs and other places of entertainment can control their entry requirements?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate, but, reading the press this morning, I felt that the subject of identity cards may be before the House in one form or another in the not too distant future.

Mr. David Alton: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to consider early-day motion 176, which has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House condemns the decision of the South African courts to jail for six years, 18 year old Charles Bester following his conscienscious objection to serving in the South African armed forces; notes his statement in court after hearing his sentence, 'you shall know that truth and the truth shall set you free'; and calls upon the South African government to immediately release Mr. Bester.]
It concerns the case of Charles Bester, an 18-year-old African who last week was sentenced to six years' imprisonment by the South African courts, because of his refusal to be conscripted into the South African armed forces. Does he not believe that it would be appropriate for the Government to make representations to the South African Government to seek clemency?

Mr. Wakeham: No, we reject the motion. Such decisions are for the individuals concerned. However, we understand why some young South Africans refuse to do military service, and we respect the sincerity of their views.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I wish the Leader of the House a happy Christmas? I shall be more than ready to help him out with any sticky comestibles that he may have in his hamper.
Will the Leader of the House give time for an early debate on endangered species? I was not referring to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath); I was referring to, for example, black rhinos, gorillas and elephants. The right hon. Gentleman must have read recent newspaper stories and will know that there is great concern for such animals. It would be much appreciated if we could have an early debate on endangered species.

Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. Gentleman was talking about endangered species, I thought that he was talking about himself. I see that today he is in his winter plumage, and I look forward to seeing him in brighter attire when the spring comes. He has raised a serious matter in which he takes a serious interest and for which the House respects him. I cannot promise him an early debate, but it is certainly a matter that I shall bear in mind.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary next week to make a statement to the House about the policy for issuing visas to those who wish to visit the United Kingdom? Is he

aware that, on 5 December, Mr. Narinder Singh applied to a British post in India for a visit visa to visit his brother-in-law who was seriously ill in a Leeds hospital? Mr. Singh was asked to produce a doctor's letter confirming that his brother-in-law was in hospital, which he did last Monday. Unfortunately, his brother-in-law died on Saturday.
On Monday, he asked for a visa to attend the funeral and to help his sister and her young family to settle his brother-in-law's affairs. He has still not been granted a visa, despite several hours of discussion and telexes this week between London and India. It appears that this decision, and many others like it, are in direct contradiction of assurances given by Home Office and Foreign Office Ministers that visas would be quickly granted in urgent medical cases.

Mr. Wakeham: Obviously I cannot comment on the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I shall make inquiries when I leave the Chamber and I shall contact him.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Before the publication of the football Bill, will the Leader of the House talk to the Department of the Environment to ensure that I receive an answer to a question that I put down on the Order Paper a fortnight ago suggesting that the league table should be studied in terms of football violence? The table may show that, when considered against the numbers attending football matches, the number of incidents of violence may be insignificant. Or is he worried that Luton Town may finish at the top?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not worried in the least about such matters, but I shall speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an answer to his question.

Mr. Alan Meale: Will the Leader of the House inform the House why he has decided to delay debate on cold weather payments until mid-January? Will he review that decision, because many tens of thousands of pensioners are facing illness and death this winter? Can we not for once tackle the matter before the winter is halfway through and there are catastrophic effects for pensioners?

Mr. Wakeham: We had discussions about changing the time of the debate, and the Government felt that it would be more convenient to have the debate on the date that I have recently announced.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House confirm or deny that it is not his intention to set up a Select Committee on Scottish affairs? What is so complex about doing so? The Opposition will gladly man a Select Committee on Scottish affairs. We desperately need it.

Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the tradition of the House is that Select Committees are set up by agreement with Members in all parts of the House. I have tried for a long time to obtain agreement. Unfortunately, the proposals that I presented to the Opposition were not acceptable, and I make no complaint about that. That will be the subject of the debate, and no doubt we can discuss it next week.

Adjournment Motion

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 22 December, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during Question Time the Home Secretary reached question No. 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), regarding a national identity scheme after 1992. The question was quite specific. It was in no way allied to the scheme for football that is proposed by the Minister with responsibility for sport. Question No. 73 on the Order Paper relates specifically to the football identity card scheme.
It is a well-known practice—indeed, a rule—in the House that when a Minister is answering questions, so as not to cause embarrassment to anyone or to cause difficulties to the House, he shall not answer questions further down the Order Paper. On question No. 7, at the end of his last answer to the supplementary questions that had been asked, the Home Secretary referred to the football membership scheme. I drew that to your attention immediately, Mr. Speaker, for the very good reason that that practice must be stopped. It should not be allowed because it would provide much more room for manoeuvre for any Government, irrespective of colour.
It is important to raise the matter now as a point of order as it should be drawn to the attention of the Home Secretary, who may not have been aware of the mistake that he was committing. When such occasions arise, there is a perfectly reasonable and proper practice for doing what the Home Secretary might have wished to do, and that is to approach Mr. Speaker earlier in the day saying, "I wish to answer question No. 73 about a matter which I regard as important." The Home Secretary did not use that procedure. He thought that he could get away with it without anyone noticing, but we have caught him out.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with the matter, although of course I shall call the Home Secretary if he so wishes. If that did occur—I shall look carefully at Hansard—perhaps I should have drawn the attention of the House to it. But I must say that it had escaped me. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I go through the Order Paper carefully and try to ensure that those with questions lower down the Order Paper have an opportunity to be called. I had not linked that question on the Order Paper. I had linked question No. 37 with question No. 7. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Perhaps I should in future be stricter in listening to supplementary questions. The hon. Gentleman is frequently very close to the mark.

Mr. Hurd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely accept the principle to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has drawn attention. I understand its importance, and I would not have tried anything out either on him or on you, Mr. Speaker, but I say emphatically that I was not trying to answer question No. 73. I am ashamed to say that my reading of the Order Paper had not got that far. Now that I have studied question No. 73, I see
that it is about legal disqualification under the football membership scheme. It does not


mention identity cards. The answers that I was giving to a series of supplementary questions were all about identity cards, and I believe that tomorrow Hansard will show that there is only a glancing relationship between the answers that I gave and the answer that I would have given to question No. 73 had it been reached.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give me guidance on how we can, within the rules of order, raise the matter of the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) who, according to a report today, works for a company appropriately known as Grafton Interaction and has offered his services for the sum of £2,900 a month to a Danish company.
in the run-up to privatisation of electricity"?
It is reported that the hon. Gentleman used his position as a member of the Select Committee on Energy to offer his services to the Danish Board of District Heating, an organisation representing about 30 communal central heating firms. The letter from Grafton stated:
We can supply confidential reports of political activities, discussions with UK Government Ministers and the thinking of the specialist groups in Parliament.
Is it in order for a Member of the House to prostitute himself and to try to sell, for personal gain, specialist knowledge obtained through his membership of the House and through dealings with Ministers?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the position described by the hon. Gentleman remains hypothetical at present. Should the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) acquire a declarable interest, I am sure that he will declare it. Wider matters to do with the registering and declaring of interests are within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I cannot rule on an individual case in response to a point of order.

Mr. David Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Normally we inform hon. Members if points of order relating to them are to be raised in the House. Did the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) inform my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) that he intended to raise this point of order? If not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, the Chair can impose the rules—there are not very many of them—but convention is a matter of honour between Members on both sides of the House. It is certainly a convention that we do that.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For some time now there has been a change in the way in which points of order are raised. There was a time when a point of order could be raised immediately on an issue that might have been of great interest to the House and it would be taken at that time. Now we are always told that points of order must be taken after questions or statements, when the impact of the issue has usually gone. It may serve to calm the atmosphere, but that is not the point. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the convention that has grown up. Perhaps it is an old-fashioned view, but I believe that when someone wishes to make a point of order, it should be taken there and then. May we return to the former practice?

Mr. Speaker: I do not need to reconsider the matter because I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. If a matter of order arises at any time, it should be raised immediately with the Chair. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had raised that matter immediately, I would have dealt with it at the time. That would have been the correct way of dealing with it. He sought to raise it at the end of Question Time as arising out of questions. That is a practice upon which I ruled on 12 February 1987. Matters that need immediate attention from the Chair may be raised at once.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is much more domestic and in search of guidance. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are becoming increasingly worried about the lack of taxis coming into the House during the day and especially at night. Will you use any influence that you have to ensure either a greater supply of taxis or that alternative arrangements are made? On some nights, hon. Members may stand for 50 minutes waiting to go home.

Mr. Speaker: I have no authority for dealing with taxis. That matter should be raised with the Services Committee.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Of course I shall hear points of order now, but there is a long list of speakers for the subsequent debate. I fear I shall have to place a limit on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. I do not like doing that, but in the circumstances I shall have to do it.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could have your advice. Some time ago, as you will recollect, you said that a debate about the sale of old people's homes in Bradford was sub judice as a result of a High Court case. Strangely, that did not stop Bradford council deciding, on Tuesday, to hire private management consultants to negotiate the sale of those homes on the basis of the life expectancy of old people living in them. I attended the High Court case in London this morning and the High Court has reserved judgment. It is not known when the judgment will be made.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not pursue his point of order. As the matter is sub judice, I cannot deal with it.

Mr. Madden: That is precisely the point, Mr. Speaker. In view of the present situation, will it be permissible for myself and other hon. Members who are anxious about it to raise the matter? It has been debated extensively in our own council chamber whereas we are denied the opportunity to debate it in Parliament. Would we be in order next week to raise this matter, which is important to our constituents, in view of the fact that the High Court has reserved judgment and it may be weeks before its judgment is delivered?

Mr. Speaker: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall look into the matter and communicate with him. I repeat that we have a heavy day ahead of us.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to the point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)? Will you confirm that, if the allegations about the hon. Member for


Erewash (Mr. Rost) are true, he has complied with the rules of the House? He is entitled to act in that way under our rules because they do not preclude people from doing so, if they register. They can then do what they want.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I am not prepared to rule on a hypothetical matter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The key issue is the position of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. A general principle is involved here. When the interests of a Member change after that Member has been appointed to a Select Committee of the House, the responsibility is placed on the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to reconsider that selection. if the hon. Member for Erewash, or any hon. Member had declared an interest prior to his selection, he might not have been selected.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that issue is hypothetical. He has abused the time of the House. The matter should be drawn to the attention of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, if the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about it. I have aleady made that point.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard earlier in exchanges with the Leader of the House of his regret that he has removed three hours of opportunity for hon. Members to debate matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday. Will you confirm that the Standing Orders of the House require the Consolidated Fund Bill debate to be completed at 9 am, on Tuesday, but that there is nothing to stop the Government tabling a motion to extend the debate by three hours, thereby restoring to Back Benchers the opportunity of further debate? Perhaps, as guardian of Back Benchers' rights, you would at least consider using your influence to press the Government to consider that.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Leader of the House. However, I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The honour of one of our colleagues has been most disgracefully impugned this afternoon and he is not present to defend himself. I merely seek guidance about whether we can seek information about whether our colleague was informed, in accordance with the conventions of the House, before the statement was made.

Mr. Speaker: The matter has been raised previously. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman was not so informed, or he would probably have been here. I believe the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) quoted from a report in a newspaper. But I hope that all of us will always stick to the conventions of the House, which have served us well over the decades.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that the matter is not hypothetical. I agree that whether money has changed hands is hypothetical—clearly it has not in this case. What is not hypothetical is that a letter has been written. In view

of that, may I put it to you that the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) should be asked to explain himself to the House. Such activity brings the House into disrepute?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is alleging a contempt of the House, he must draw my attention to it by letter, in the proper way.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am sorry to press the point, but in view of the, I imagine, legitimate points of order made by other hon. Members, would it not be incumbent on the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—who is unfortunately leaving the Chamber at this moment—to say whether he notified my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) of what he intended to say? Does that not raise serious issues about the tradition of notifying an hon. Member that he will be referred to in an attack of that kind?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct, but, as I have already said, it is not within the power of the Chair to compel hon. Members to adhere to the conventions of the House, although it is a great pity if they are not adhered to.

Mr. Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have, of course, a duty to protect hon. Members. Is it right that Opposition Members should he able to make slanderous statements against other hon. Members, under the guise of a point of order, and then walk out before they can explain themselves? Are not hon. Members entitled to the protection of the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have conventions in the House. I have already said that I think that it is a great pity, and lowers the reputation of the House, if we do not stick to the conventions, which have served us well over the years, indeed over the centuries.

BILLS PRESENTED

FAIR EMPLOYMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Mr. Secretary King, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Ian Stewart and Mr. Peter Viggers, presented a Bill to establish a Fair Employment Tribunal for Northern Ireland and an office of President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal; to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976; to make further provision with respect to the promoton of equality of opportunity in employments and occupations in Northern Ireland between persons of different religious beliefs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. Secretary Moore, supported by Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. Peter Lloyd, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to social security and occupational and personal pension schemes; to make provision with respect to certain employment-related benefit schemes; to provide for the recovery, out of certain compensation payments, of amounts determined by reference to payments of benefit; to make fresh provision with respect to the constitution and functions of war pensions committees; and for


connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 3.]

Orders of the Day — Security Service Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Home Secretary, I must repeat to the House that, very sadly, we have a late start today, and many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate. I regret that not all of them will be called. I shall impose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are called before that time to bear in mind that limit in consideration of the late start that we have had today.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill gives Parliament, for the first time this century, the opportunity to establish a framework for the Security Service and to weld it into legislation. A month ago no one suspected that we are about to launch a substantial reform of this kind. Now, so fast does the political kaleidoscope shift, those who in their hearts were amazed at the boldness of what we proposed take it for granted and press for more. Labour Members, who in their time did nothing, are particularly urgent that we should do more than we propose—and much more, of course, than they ever dreamed possible.
Before I come to the Bill, I must say a word about the Security Service. I am well aware that it is hampered by the fiction which envelops it. I have nothing against the thriller as an art form, but those who unwittingly get their ideas of the Security Service from Sapper, Le Carré or Deighton will not bring much understanding to the Bill. The Security Service is not full of latter-day Bulldog Drummonds, nor is it locked in a time warp of the 1950s, for ever fighting shadows that have long since disappeared. Still less equipped for the debate are those who feed on works of fiction paraded as if they were statements of fact.
The precursor of today's Security Service was created in the War Office just under 80 years ago to deal with German army espionage. The unit was called M05, and later became M15. In 1935, M15 was amalgamated with the section of the Metropolitan police working to counter subversion and it was in that year—although one would not always think so—that it changed its name to the Security Service. In both world wars, the Security Service was highly successful in counter-espionage and in the last war, the efforts of all the German agents sent here were frustrated.
Let me deal with the constitutional aspects of the service. At the end of the war, the work of the service was reviewed. In his report in 1963, Lord Denning quoted from a report by Sir Findlater Stewart in 1945, which crisply described the purpose of the Security Service as
Defence of the Realm and nothing else".
That phrase was repeated and developed in 1952 in the Home Secretary's directive to the Director-General of the Security Service—the Maxwell Fyfe directive. That directive, published in Lord Denning's report, continues to apply to the service today.
We now propose that the language of that injunction should be turned into the requirement of a statute. I share


the sorrow of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that the rolling phrases of the 1940s and 1950s are being replaced, but I think that the term "national security" is now well recognised and understood in statute, and it appears in many Bills passed by the Labour party when in government. By its very nature, the phrase refers— and can only refer—to matters relating to the survival or well-being of the nation as a whole, and not to party-political, sectional or lesser interests.
The main responsibilities of the service for the protection of national security are clearly set out in the Bill. In addition, the Security Service must be able to act if necessary against any substantial threat to the nation as a whole. It is not primarily concerned with matters relating to defence and foreign policy but, as its history shows, it could not, and would not, stand inert in the face of threats to the nation's defence or the hostile actions of a foreign Government. It cannot act in any of those areas, however, unless the security of the nation as a whole is in question. That is what national security means.

Mr. David Winnick: No one in the House, and very few people outside, would for one moment dispute the need for some kind of security service to protect national security, but how can it be argued that it was in the interests of national security for MI5 to target my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and Patricia Hewitt, who are bringing a case against the Government at the European Court of Human Rights? How can my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, as legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties, and Patricia Hewitt, as its general secretary, possibly have undermined national security or the democratic structure of our state?

Mr. Hurd: I shall not deal with the past operations of the service or with cases that are now before the European Court. I am merely explaining what is in the Bill, and I shall be coming to the hon. Gentleman's point later.
Clauses 1 and 2 would not permit the Security Service to act against any person or organisation just because he or it has campaigned against the policies of the Government of the day. The Bill makes the political neutrality of the Security Service a statutory requirement for the first time ever. Clause 1 accurately describes the functions of the service as the protection of national security and the safeguarding of our economic well-being from outside threats.
The House knows that, in recent years, the Security Service has been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism, and the shift in the emphasis of its work towards counter-terrorism has been marked and successful. In responding to the threat from Irish terrorism, the Security Service has gained much information that has been used directly and immediately in preventing attacks and thus saving lives. I am thinking in particular of the timely news of arms shipments that have been intercepted before they could reach the island of Ireland and wreak the havoc for which they were intended.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In the book "One Girl's War", the lady concerned says that she and other officers broke into the home of R. Palme Dutt because they understood that the main secrets of the Communist party were kept under his bed. When they examined the box under his bed, they found that it

contained his marriage lines. That was the great secret that he kept. The point is that they broke into his home, just as they have broken into and bugged the homes of many other politicians and political people. The Home Secretary says that the service will be politically neutral from now on. Can he assure us that, from now on, people who express political opposition will never be subjected to that sort of thing again?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is being offered not an assurance from me but a Bill. We are putting these matters on the statute book for the first time. I do not intend to enter into details of what has happened in the past, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the passages in the Bill that are relevant to his point.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary said that clause 1 explicitly excluded any political bias in the service. Will he read us the words that provide that?

Mr. Hurd: I referred to clauses 1 and 2. clause 2(2)(b) says that it shall be the duty of the director-general to ensure
that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party.
That is a precise and accurate answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
I was dealing with the first and, at the moment, dominant role of the Security Service. I shall deal with subversion in a moment, because I know that that is the aspect that most perturbs Opposition Members.
As regards espionage, there is not much doubt about the principle involved. During the years since the war, the Security Service has provided information that has led to the possibility of successful and decisive action against hostile intelligence agents in this country. We continue to face other threats from outside the country, which relate to those who would weaken our defences, threaten our economy and suborn those whom we trust with our secrets. Here again, the service exists to protect us.
I know that one aspect that worries one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) is counter-subversion. I do not doubt that the Security Service must be able, within the limits set out in the Bill, to undertake that task. I have no doubt—we have considered the matter many times—that the definition of subversion given by Lord Harris of Greenwich in 1975 and endorsed by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South as Home Secretary was the right one.
I am not alone in reaching that conclusion. The matter was considered by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the 1984–85 Session. The Committee was considering police special branches and it accepted that the Harris definition was broadly correct.

Mr. Winnick: There was a minority report.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member would not deny that that was the conclusion of the Committee.
It is not sensible to define subversion only in terms of those who breach the criminal law. We must be able to know the plans and intentions of those who abuse the freedom that we provide under the law to infiltrate our institutions and structures. Under the definition, however, the Security Service can take an interest only in people who


have a deliberate purpose and intent to undermine parliamentary democracy and who also represent a real threat to the security of the nation.
The definition is not as wide as some imagine. It is not enough that someone's actions may have the unintended effect of weakening parliamentary democracy. There must be a deliberate intention. It is not enough to have that intention if it presents no current substantial threat. Such people must represent a real threat to the security of the nation, and must intend to do so. That is a fairly narrow and precise definition.
The Security Service is not interested in the normal and proper conduct of the trade unions of this country; it is not interested in thwarting those who seek to persuade others that Government policies—including this Government's policies—are wrong or that their priorities are wrong. It is not interested in those who join together to make their views heard on, for example, the environment or on our defence policies. It is interested in any who might collectively or individually, overtly or clandestinely, be planning the deliberate overthrow of our parliamentary democracy and in doing so present a real threat to our security and safety. Those who think that such people could not exist are ill-informed. Those who think that the Security Service imagines that such people are everywhere are plain wrong.
I ask the House to recognise that clauses 1 and 2 have been carefully drafted to ensure that the Security Service is able to continue to protect the nation as a whole, and to give Parliament a clear indication of its principal concerns. The Security Service cannot get involved in lesser objectives, nor can it obtain or disclose information for lesser objectives. Nor, under clause 2(2) from which I have already quoted, can it take action intended to further the interests of any political party, including the party of the Government of the day. Those are all strong safeguards, proposed for the first time in statute, against the Security Service seeking to act outside its functions or against any Government seeking to put improper pressure on the director-general to do so.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Many of us are worried about the meaning of the words
undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial… means",
since the final arbiter will be the Secretary of State reporting to the Prime Minister, not to any Committee of the House. We would do well to keep in mind when we use the words "political" or "industrial" the fact that the Prime Minister described the miners as enemies of the state. Given that kind of definition, what trust can we have in those words?

Mr. Hurd: The change that I am coming to is fundamental, and addresses the hon. Gentleman's point. The issue of warrants for entering property to obtain information, as with the issue of warrants for interception, will be under the scrutiny of a judge. That is a substantial change, which completely alters the basis on which the hon. Gentleman made his criticism.
I ask the House not to underestimate the effect of that. We already have experience of that in the arrangements that Parliament approved in the Interception of

Communications Act 1985. Our experience of that shows the real impact that the Bill will have on the Security Service and on the work of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does the definition of national security continue to be that given in the White Paper on the interception of communications, which I think covered the Government's foreign and defence policies?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. If my hon. Friend reads what I said about the definition of national security earlier, he will see that I defined it rather carefully and at rather greater length than previously. He may wish to return to the point later, but I hope that he will study the words that I used at the beginning.

Mr. Dave Nellist: rose—

Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way. I must get on.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without in any way wishing to repeat matters dealt with in April, is not one of the purposes of a debate such as this, particularly during the opening speech of a leading Minister, to give hon. Members the opportunity to ask factual questions? Is not the Home Secretary being selective in whom he is prepared to give way to?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye later, he will be able to make his point then.

Mr. Hurd: I sometimes think that I give way too much. I want to pursue this argument. Many other hon. Members wish to speak and I want to make some progress since I have already given way generously.
I was explaining the impact of the arrangements under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, which we propose to extend under the Security Service Bill to the work of the Security Service and to my own work.
The arrangements for authorising interception warrants under the 1985 Act ensure that the Home Secretary sees the way in which the concerns and priorities work out in practice. My predecessor will know, because it is a worry that he has expressed, that that was not so in his time. I have either to agree or disagree with them. If an application for a warrant in that area is submitted to me and I am not satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of national security, I shall not issue it.
In making my decision, I know that the interception commissioner is looking over my shoulder. He has access to all the warrants and has the right to call for any document or file relating to those warrants.
In his report for 1987, the interception commissioner, the right hon. Lord Justice Lloyd, said:
I have examined all the new warrants issued on the ground of major subversive activity, and I have selected other warrants for examination at random. I am satisfied that I have been given a complete list of all new warrants when making my random selection. As last year, I have not come across a single case where the Secretary of State has not been justified in regarding the issue of the warrant as being necessary in the interests of national security, or for the other purposes mentioned in Section 2(2) of the Act".
That is the commissioner, an independent judge, doing his job and reporting not in a secret document but in the 1987 report which was published in March this year, was laid before Parliament, and is in the Library.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Hurd: No, I want to get on.
If the House approves the Bill, it will have the assurance that similar rigorous procedures will also operate for the property warrant. The Security Service, the Secretary of State and Parliament will know that each and every warrant will be open to the commissioner's impartial and independent scrutiny. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) will have to take it from me that it is a formidable feeling to know, as I have known since 1986, that such an oversight exists under the Interception of Communications Act.
There are two major changes. First, for the first time, the decisions come from the Secretary of State, as they did not when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) held office. Secondly, when dealing with them under the law, I know that I have the judge looking over my shoulder. Anyone who supposes that that is a comfortable, easy or platitudinous position is wrong.
The commissioner's report will cover not only warrant matters but any other matters arising out of the work of the commissioner or the tribunal as a result of their investigating any complaint. There will be in place—I hope that the House will give full weight to this—a commissioner and a tribunal able to follow up the real practical concerns of people—organisations as well as individuals—who feel in some way aggrieved as a result of what they believe the Security Service has done against them. They do not need to provide any evidence for their views or give any basis for their belief.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary seems to be couching his description of the commissioner's powers much more widely than the Bill. Clause 4(3) confines them to warrants—not, as he has suggested, to the whole range of security matters. That is a serious objection to the Bill.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman may not have read far enough. He is right that the commissioner has the job of investigating the way in which the Home Secretary exercises his warrant powers. However, the tribunal may also, as I think that he will find in schedule 1, refer to the commissioner a wider range of matters if it is felt that there are grounds for doing so. The crucial point is that his report to Parliament can cover the whole range of his activities as authorised by the Bill.
Since November 1987, we have had an independent staff counsellor to consider anxieties from within the Security Service. Now, if Parliament agrees, once the tribunal and commissioner are in place to investigate the truth of concerns felt outside the service, the case for publishing rumour and allegations is undermined. We catered for the aggrieved insider when the staff counsellor was put in position a year ago. We cater for the aggrieved outsider, the citizen who feels that the Security Service has done something against him in the Bill, with its provisions for the tribunal and the commissioner.
Of course, this is not the only possible model. Others have argued for a system of oversight and review. Some think that oversight should be by a Committee of Privy Councillors and others look for a body which draws more widely on Members of the House. Some appear to believe that all matters relating to national security, except

perhaps a current operation, should be made publicly available across the Floor. Others look to the Security Commission and suggest its vote should be expanded. Those are serious proposals that deserve to be examined, but, having examined them, we do not favour them.
Secrecy is at the heart of security. It is not the result—as one might read in fiction—of some paranoia by the Security Service or by Ministers. It is fundamental to the success of the protection of the public by the service. Most people accept the case for some secrecy and they accept that any oversight body would have to respect that. During the debate on the Loyal Address, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) accepted that Ministers should not be obliged to tell the House, for example, that they believed an alleged bomber was staying in a particular hotel. I think everyone would accept that. The difference, therefore, is not over the need for secrecy, but whether it is possible to draw an effective line between what can be kept secret and what can run free.
I hope that the House understands that we ask the Security Service to work against people and organisations who are not amateur tip and runners, or anarchists with a rush of blood to the head. We ask them, particularly in counter-terrorism, to work against people and organisations who have become highly sophisticated in their methods. Those people work hard at identifying whether they have been spotted and are skilful in taking action to evade detection once they are alerted. One does not have to announce that one knows who they are, or what outrage they are planning, to put them on their guard. They are expert at piecing together and using strands of information and evidence much more cleverly than that.
In those circumstances, which are borne in upon us day by day, it is not possible to distinguish, as some have genuinely sought to do, between policy and operations, overall resources and how they are spent, or theory and practice. Those distinctions can be made on paper and can be beguiling, but they do not work in practice. An oversight body could not steer clear of secrets by confining itself to the generalities. A body which had no access to secrets would have access to very little of interest or importance to the work of the Security Service. A body that worked and reported in ignorance would not be of much appeal to the House.
If the body was inside the necessary ring of secrecy, it would have to report in monosyllables to those outside. People could not be expected to be content with that, whether they were members of the body or those who listened to the reports.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: I shall give way when I have finished the argument.
I am grateful to the House, the Select Committee and the conventions of the House for helping to ensure that I, like my predecessors, am not placed in an intolerable position. Those conventions would not hold up against the pressures that would weigh on an oversight body that had to report to Parliament and the public on how it fulfilled its remit.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In Congress and the Senate, the security services select committee examines the budget, oversees the service and has other responsibilities. If it works in America—I was told by the principal adviser to


that committee in Washington that it has never leaked and that Congress and Senate were happy with its operations—why could it not work here?

Mr. Hurd: I shall deal with comparisons between the United States and the Commonwealth shortly, because I understand that they form part of the argument.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his point about the difficulty involved in taking a Select Committee inside the barrier was well illustrated by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in the Zircon affair? The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, was taken inside the barrier and told about expenditure. That decision was questioned and seriously challenged by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Workington.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's point is relevant in general, but not directly to the Security Service. The illustration he has given of the difficulty in which respected Members of Parliament can find themselves is valid, even when applied to the Security Service.

Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way to me now?

Mr. Hurd: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman, will be be happy for the rest of the day?

Mr. Nellist: That is highly unlikely, but I accept the comment with the graciousness with which it was made. Will the Home Secretary answer the question I wished to ask a few minutes ago about the basic and fundamental nature of the Security Service—its subjectivity? In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State mentioned overthrowing or weakening parliamentary democracy. If I and my hon. Friends, together with members of the Labour movement outside this place, were to campaign for something that we think would strengthen parliamentary democracy but which I suspect all Conservative Members would think would weaken it—the abolition of the House of Lords—is that something for which we could be investigated under the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Hurd: No. That would not be the case under the existing system and, under the safeguards we are proposing in the Bill, which hon. Gentlemen should welcome, that would not be so because the safeguards will state that in black and white.
We are not saying that no one can step inside the barrier of secrecy. I have mentioned the interception commissioner, who is a judge, and the staff counsellor, who is not a member of the Security Service, and they are both inside. I have also mentioned the Security Commission, which is chaired by a judge, and that has been inside on specific occasions. All those people have a clear and specific job with clear terms of reference and clear lines of reporting. I do not believe that one can read across from that responsibility to a general parliamentary oversight body. Review and oversight are incompatible with the specific or narrow terms of reference held by the people I have mentioned. Review and oversight could not be confined without creating a contradiction at the heart of our security, which we should all want to avoid.
As the hon. Member for Workington said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is repeatedly saying, in other countries there are arrangements for oversight. In some cases it is carried out by Privy Councillors, committees of Congress or their equivalent. We should take account of that, but we should not feel that we need to follow automatically what has been proposed or put in place in other countries.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not even if it works?

Mr. Hurd: I am coming to that. There should be no willy-nilly or automatic assumption of that sort.
The hon. Member for Workington referred to the model in the United States. The FBI is the parallel organisation to our Security Service, but it represents an entirely different response, to a different constitutional framework. However effective the arrangements may be in America, they could not be directly implemented here. The crucial point is that the United States has no equivalent to the Prime Minister or Home Secretary. There is no person present in and responsible to the House who has to propose and defend legislation in the way that I am doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills then says, "What about Australia or Canada, where there are parliamentary systems which are more comparable to ours?" We need to examine that carefully. The provisions in Australia are recent, and the relevant parliamentary committee has not yet met formally. Australians would agree that it is too soon to be clear about how it will work out, but it is worth noting that, among other restrictions, the committee's terms of reference prevent it from reviewing anything said to be operationally sensitive. That may suit Australia well but, in our terms, it would beg many of the questions at issue in this discussion.
Similarly, the experience in Canada is recent—no more than four years old. It provides for two separate oversight bodies, an inspector-general and his staff and a review committee, and there is discussion in Canada about whether that leads to overlapping and difficult responsibilities. The system, which is very new, is to be reviewed next year.
Of course, this was a subject of debate in 1986, and we have thought long and hard about oversight and discussed it with others. I had a conversation recently with a Minister in another country who had experience of parliamentary oversight and who said that there was an inevitable tendency—without imputing blame to anyone in particular—to draw party political advantage from the knowledge that the overseers obtained in confidence.
There is another danger that I must mention to the hon. Member for Workington: the creation of unofficial and subterranean channels of secrecy outside the framework of oversight. We are right to put aside this set of ideas and to concentrate instead on a clear statement of function, organisation and responsibility through Ministers to Parliament, and on a clear remedy for grievance—

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman promised to be happy, but here he is again; but I am coming to the close of my remarks. Perhaps he will succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was very surprised to read in the newspapers that the Opposition had decided to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I clearly remember how the right hon. Member


for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I went off contentedly to the "Newsnight" programme on the day the Bill was published. I remember him saying then that the Labour party would not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. It is sad to see what has happened since then, but it is not a mystery.
Last week, the right hon. Gentleman made a little foray in the direction of common sense over the handling of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It was not exactly a memorable foray: he was persuading his colleagues to vote for a destructive reasoned amendment and to vote against Third Reading, but in the middle he urged them to stage an heroic abstention on Second Reading. Even that distinctly mouselike movement was too much for the Labour party. There was tumult; the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who is not in her place, wrote a rude letter to her leader. The party was again in disarray and the trumpet for retreat was sounded. So, on this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman, despite his clear statement on television and his personal acknowledgment in the House that it was a step forward, has now to slink back to the world of unreality over which he presides as deputy leader.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: I shall not: I am coming to the end.
We have worked hard and soberly on the Bill for many months. We were not forced into it. We have fully taken into account the views and experiences of the Security Service. We have tried to analyse the present correctly and to look at the kinds of tasks which, as far as one can tell, the Security Service is likely to have to undertake in the years ahead.
After these months of cool consideration, we decided that the time had come to make the reform and take the step forward contained in the Bill. I hope that, whatever their criticisms, Opposition Members will acknowledge that it is a big step forward for the service, for Government and for Parliament. I hope the House will judge that this is a step which is well weighed, and I urge it to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary was right to say that on the first day of this Parliament, when the House was told of the Government's intention to introduce a Security Service Bill, I said that I hoped that the Opposition would be able to give it at least qualified support. Not only did I say that on television when I had the pleasure of appearing with the Home Secretary, but I said it in the House. I said that we hoped to support it—
subject to examination of the Bill".—[Official Report, 23 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 137.]
We examined the Bill, we asked questions and I propose to tell the Home Secretary how inadequate were the answers that we received, and why, having examined the Bill as I said we would, our conclusion is, and must be in a free society, that the Opposition should vote against it.
Having said that, I wish to tell the right hon. Gentleman why I hoped we could vote for the Bill and why I still wish that that were possible. In our view, the work of the Security Service is best conducted free from political controversy. That is at least part of the reason why the Labour party proposed, and continues to propose, plans

which I shall explain in a minute for the supervision of the Security Service by an all-party Committee of the House. But the Home Secretary must understand that to obtain all-party agreement, even on matters for which that is highly desirable, requires something more than the Government making unilateral announcements in the expectation that the Opposition parties will lamely and meekly accept whatever they recommend.
If, as they claim, the Government really want all-party agreement on security matters, they must make real attempts to accommodate some of the strongly held views of the Opposition parties. This Bill does not even recognise the problems that the Opposition have identified —problems concerning the accountability of the security services, and problems that affect the civil liberties of the nation and the efficiency of the Service. So much was shown again this afternoon by the Home Secretary's reply to my question. He said that the Bill specifically prohibited the service from operating with political bias. When I asked him to justify that from the Bill, he read from a clause that specifically prohibited the service from acting in the interests of a political party. If the Home Secretary cannot distinguish between those two things, he is not fit to be Home Secretary.
I have never suggested that the Security Service has burnt ballot boxes, forged ballot papers or acted on behalf of Conservative candidates to obtain their success. What I have suggested, and what we all know, is that the Security Service throughout the years has operated in a way that clearly shows a political bias of a much more general but equally damaging sort. We know, for instance, that in the 1970s two great patriots, Lord Scanlon and Mr. Jack Jones, were continually under the surveillance of the security services. I do not believe that even the Security Service of that period could have been so bone-headed as to tap their telephones if it had not been operating under the political bias that assumes that trade union leaders are likely to be subversive.
That is what we are discussing, not the interests of a political party. That the Home Secretary, with his abilities, should give such an inadequate answer to the question that I raised shows how flimsy is the ground on which he stands—

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), whose experience in these matters I respect.

Mr. Whitney: Is the right hon. Gentleman alleging that the Security Service tapped Mr. Jack Jones' telephone against the orders of the Home Secretary of the day, or deliberately obscured the knowledge of. the Home Secretary of the day, who was a Labour Home Secretary?

Mr. Hattersley: I am making the allegation that Mr. Jack Jones' telephone was tapped, a matter of general knowledge and comment. I am making the assertion that it should not have been tapped, and that no one would have tapped it who was not so befuddled by political bias that he did not understand the real threat to the country and where the real duties of the Security Service lay.

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I shall take a few interventions at the beginning, but then follow the Home Secretary's practice and try to get on.

Mr. Allason: Without wanting to go specifically into the cases of Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that leaders of the trade union movement have often been approached by hostile intelligence services and have reported these approaches to the Security Service, which has conducted operations with their consent?

Mr. Hattersley: I have no objection to that. What surprises me is that the hon. Gentleman might think that it was in any way relevant to the complaint that I was making about phones being tapped without the permission of the people who owned them.
I want to emphasise that the Government do not even get close to proposing a scheme of genuine accountability. The Home Secretary made that clear from the start. He said that he was not prepared to countenance the sort of accountability that the Opposition want. But the Bill does not even take a small step in that direction. Certainly, MI5 is to be given a statutory existence, which is progress of a sort. There were times when the Government of the day did not even acknowledge MI5's existence, let alone put it on a statutory basis. The Bill allows Parliament and the public to know no more about the security services than we know today.
The Bill's provisions will allow Parliament and the public to know nothing more about the Security Service, and it provides no more reassurance about the service's behaviour than we now possess. It is possible to argue, as I shall in a moment, that the Bill's provisions increase the Security Service's power to carry out operations that, in a free society, should be prohibited. The Bill could be used to legalise that which is presently illegal and to legitimise operations that are now wholly illegitimate and should be suppressed.
Today, MI5 exists in a form that is most clearly set out in Lord Denning's report on the Profumo affair 25 years ago. Lord Denning wrote:
The members of the services are, in the eye of the law, ordinary citizens with no powers greater than anyone else. They have no special powers of arrest such as the police have. No special powers of search are given to them. They cannot enter premises without the consent of the householder even though they may suspect a spy is there.
Despite that view being generally accepted by Governments and by the courts, we know from memoirs, prohibited and allowed, and from studies of the services both independent and Government-inspired, that for years MI5, in the immortal words of Peter Wright,
bugged and burgled its way all over London.
MI5 did so illegally, but in the knowledge that some Governments and some Home Secretaries preferred it to behave like a private army rather than cause the embarrassment that would result from the need for MI5 to obtain explicit ministerial permission to tap a trade union leader's home or to enter the premises of a private citizen, believing him to be assisting the Soviet Union. When the Home Secretary was courteous enough to discuss those matters with me, he agreed that one of the arguments had always been that it is best to keep the service outside the law, because that way, a Minister's hands are kept clean.
Under clause 1, it will be illegal for the service to take any of the actions that I have mentioned without obtaining the Home Secretary's explicit permission. That could have

been a substantial step forward but for the inhibition that, for the Home Secretary's permission to have any force, three requirements must be met. First, the criteria against which the Home Secretary should measure warrant applications should be public, precise and limited. Secondly, Parliament should be empowered to impose a measure of control over the way in which the Home Secretary exercises his powers. Thirdly, a mechanism should be created to ensure that the Security Service does not continue with its old habits and defy the new law by acting without the Home Secretary's warrant.
Later, I shall examine each of those criteria but before I do so, I make it plain—if the Home Secretary needs that to be done, because he heard the murmurs of agreement from my right hon. and hon. Friends when he mentioned this point—that we accept without qualification that much of the Security Service's work must be kept secret from all except that small group of men and women who, in that famous phrase, need to know how the service conducts itself. What divides the parties is their interpretation of the concept of the need to know.
We believe that there is a need for a small group of men and women of undoubted probity within Parliament at least to exercise a degree of general supervision of the service. We believe that that is necessary for the service's efficiency, as well as to ensure that it respects the obligations of a free society. Without that scrutiny, the secret service will be able still to act as a private army—the Prime Minister's private army, but a private army nevertheless. Without such scrutiny, the service will still be able to act improperly, without those who are aggrieved receiving proper recompense. Certainly the tribunal provisions in clause 5 will not provide anything like adequate redress.
In the past, the Government have inevitably chosen, as they have today, to conduct this debate as if MI5 was the best counter-espionage organisation in the free world and that we would be rash to make any radical changes that might in any way tarnish its record of unparalleled efficiency. The implication is that any radical change in the governance of MI5 might put at risk its present levels of performance. In truth, since the the war MI5 has been one of the worst and most ridiculed security services in the western Alliance. It has a long history of recruiting and promoting Soviet agents, and of wasting its own time and public money pursuing individuals who, by any rational analysis, constituted no threat whatsoever to national security.
MI5's errors are the errors of inbreeding. Its mistakes are the mistakes of a closed society that does not have to account for the legality or efficiency of its operations. It has often made itself ridiculous, believing that it was above scrutiny. The story of MI5 does not justify acceptance of the suggestion that it will be dangerous to tamper with its record of unequivocal success.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will respond to just one example that I can give. It is not from the work of the bitter and discredited Peter Wright, for whom none of us has very much time, but from a monograph produced one year ago by Mr. Anthony Cavendish—a man neither embittered not vindictive, neither impoverished nor prejudiced. It is a monograph written not about the 1950s, which the Home Secretary said were days behind us, but about the 1970s. In that monograph, which was suppressed by the Government, Anthony Cavendish wrote


that the Security Service was engaged in plots to destabilise the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
One can look at Mr. Cavendish's story in two ways. If it is true, then MI5 was engaged in treason. If it is not true, then in Mr. Cavendish, it employed and promoted a man who, by making that allegation, demonstrates himself to be at best a liar, and at worst a lunatic. I am inclined to accept the first explanation—that what he wrote was true. Whichever alternative we choose, it does not redound to the credit of MI5's employment and promotion policies.

Mr. Allason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Anthony Cavendish has never been employed by the Security Service, and that any comments made by him must be purely speculative?

Mr. Hattersley: If the Government will allow publication of Mr. Cavendish's little book, we shall be a position to contest Mr. Cavendish's judgment on his employment with the judgments of others. Unfortunately, that book is suppressed. Since that was done without Mr. Cavendish ever being a member of the Security Service, it raises considerable questions about the justification for suppressing it in the first place.
I emphasise that making the Security Service more accountable would improve its efficiency, as well as ensuring that it plays a role consistent with existing democracy. From time to time, we are told that parliamentary control of the kind that we seek will undermine—

Mr. Heffer: ; How does the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) know who is employed by the Security Service? Is he a member of the Security Service? Does he have more information than any other right hon. or hon. Member? We are entitled to know from where his information comes.

Mr. Allason: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene again, I can give his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) the answer to his question.

Mr. Hattersley: No, because I want to deal with the real world, and not with the world that is inhabited by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in one guise or another, or under one name or another.
I wish to explain why we insist on arguing for parliamentary control. I shall deal with the argument, which is inevitably and invariably made, that to allow a measure of parliamentary control will undermine the confidence of our partners and allies in the operation of the service. I know the Government's preoccupation with that subject. I vividly recall telling the Foreign Secretary that I would be very surprised if the Soviet Union did not know at least as much about the Zircon satellite as was to be published in the New Statesman the following day. The Foreign Secretary's reply was that that was all very well, but that the Americans were disturbed by the incidence of such leaks.
Of course, the Americans have a security system controlled by a Senate committee which publishes its budget. It has an operational head whose name appears in the papers and whose address appears in the telephone directory. I do not suggest for a moment, no matter what the Home Secretary may pretend, that we can take the American system and spatchcock it on ours. Experience in

Washington suggests, however, that the sort of control that we propose is not invariably less efficient than a system that provides no parliamentary accountability. All the problems described by the Home Secretary—whether the few people allowed inside the net of secrecy would tell too much or tell too little; whether it would produce less satisfaction; whether it would produce intolerable pressure on the head of the service—all those problems are overcome in Washington, and I believe that with good will they could be overcome here.
From time to time the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary insist that as they are, between them and in a not very clearly defined fashion, Ministers responsible for the Civil Service, parliamentary accountability exists. It is there, manifested by them. It is provided through the answers that they give the House on the subject. 1t was, indeed, an answer by the Prime Minister that, as much as anything else, convinced me that we would not support the Bill. She told the House that there would still be accountability, because she would be accountable. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked in what form that accountability would be exercised, she replied:
In precisely the same way as the Home Secretary and myself have always been accountable to the House".—[Official Report, 22 November 1988; Vol. 141, c. 26.]
We know what that usual way is. All of us who have been Ministers dealing with such matters have given exactly the same answers to questions about security as the Prime Minister gave every time that she was asked. Her answer is that she does not answer. The Prime Minister is accountable in the sense that she is the Minister responsible for refusing to answer the questions. I think that even the Home Secretary will concede that that is a very limited definition of parliamentary accountability. The Bill should have provided something new and something better.

Mr. John Greenway: What?

Mr. Hattersley: I have been saying what for the last 10 minutes, but I will gladly repeat it. The Bill should provide for a Committee of the House with a general supervisory power.

Mr. Hurd: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I will give way to the Home Secretary after I have said this to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway): for him to hear a case based on that requirement for 20 minutes and then, when the subject is raised, to shout, "What?" says something about either his attention or his intelligence. But we shall see whether the Home Secretary can do better.

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has sketched his proposal for the benefit of the House, because it illustrates perfectly the contradiction hidden within it. On the one hand, he admits the need for secrecy over actual operations and says that what is required is some general oversight. On the other hand, he claims that that general oversight will prevent abuse in a particular operation. Both cannot be correct.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall do my best to demonstrate why the Home Secretary is wrong. Let me take an example—the creation of police authorities. We have never believed that a police authority is supposed to be involved in the day-to-day operation and decisions of inspectors,


chief constables and superintendents, but we believe that the existence of that authority is in itself a countervailing power against unreasonable operations. This is exactly the same principle. If the Home Secretary will bear with me for a moment, I shall try to give an example of what I mean.
We believe that real accountability can come about only if and when the three criteria that I have set out are properly observed. Those three criteria are a concise and acceptable definition of when action by the Security Service can be authorised, a real check on how the Home Secretary exercises his right to issue warrants and a mechanism that ensures that the Security Service does not act outside its lawful powers.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): It is all in the Bill.

Mr. Hattersley: We are going to examine the criteria in a minute, if the Minister of State will contain himself.
The criteria against which the Home Secretary's action must be judged are set out, as the Minister of State so perceptively said, in clause 3 of the Bill. They are set out in a form that is vague to the point of vacuity. That which may be authorised is
entry on or interference with property".
"Interference" can mean virtually anything. I confess that I spent a happy hour yesterday evening looking through my Shakespeare concordance at all the alternative meanings that one English poet has given the word. I shall not give them all, but "interference" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Obviously it means breaking and entering; presumably it also means the expropriation of property and the planting of monitoring devices. Unfortunately it could mean a good deal more. There is clearly no legal limit to what could be justified by the word "interference".
The rest of the clause is drawn just as widely. First, action is justified when the Home Secretary "thinks it necessary". There is no need for him to justify that view; he need only hold it. The information that the interference with property is intended to obtain must be
of substantial value in assisting the Service to discharge any of its functions".
The breadth of that definition—"any of its functions"—is clear only when we examine the functions of the service as set out in clause 1.
Clause 1 defines the function of the service as
the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of…foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political [or] industrial… means.
Some newspapers have placed much emphasis on the word "particular", but I believe that with or without that word the clause gives the security services the right to do whatever they choose. I cannot imagine any circumstance that is not covered by that subsection. It is made up of word after word that has only subjective meaning. How is a threat defined? Who decides that the intention was to overthrow or undermine? The answer to all those questions is the Security Service itself, or perhaps the Home Secretary.

Mr. William Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I will not give way any more.
Neither the Home Secretary nor the Security Service is a suitable arbiter in this instance. If clause 1(2) is dangerous, clause 1(3) is simultaneously dangerous and absurd. MI5 is enjoined to
safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
How are we to define economic threats posed by persons outside the United Kingdom? At present a great controversy surrounds the Sultan of Brunei and the pressures which, it is alleged, were exerted on him, together with inducements, to keep his sterling balances in London. In those circumstances, would MI5 have been justified in tapping the Sultan's telephone to find out whether it was his intention to move his sterling balances?
I hope that at least we can be assured that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes abroad and agrees—at the New York Plaza, let us say—to damage the British economy with policies of high interest rates, MI5 will not be entitled to "interfere with his property". But in the strict context of the Bill, applying the words in a literal sense, there is no reason why it should not do so.
No doubt the Home Secretary will argue that despite such vacuous definitions we can rely on the whole business being kept in check by his exercise of moderate and reasonable authority. He will insist that he will do only what is right, and that may well be the case.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No.
It is certainly not my intention to impugn the Home Secretary's integrity, but the power provided for him in the Bill is unchecked and should not be given to any Minister. The Home Secretary has not been appointed in perpetuity. The power to authorise action at once so important to the national interest and so offensive to civil liberties ought to be exercised only by a Minister who is himself subject to supervision. The Bill does not provide adequate supervision through the tribunal, and therefore fails the second of my criteria.
In any event, it is very difficult for the Secretary of State alone to exercise effective control over the security services. His role will become the same sort of legal fiction as his theoretical position as the police authority for London, which amounts to little more than requiring him to endorse decisions taken by others.
Let the House imagine that at 9.45 am today the Home Secretary was about to leave for the Cabinet meeting, carrying with him the draft of the speech that he intended to make this afternoon, that he was suddenly presented with an application for a warrant and that he was told that the security services needed to "interfere" with somebody's property before noon. I believe that in those circumstances the Home Secretary needs some countervailing force to exert alternative pressure from that which would certainly be exerted by the security services in favour of immediate and unthinking action. The commission, operating behind a wall of secrecy in every sense of that word, cannot exert anything like effective pressure.

Several Hon. Members: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Hind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No.


The only effective countervailing force is a Committee of this House.

Mr. Hurd: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I think that the Home Secretary wants to speak. I shall give way to him.

Mr. Hurd: Would a Committee of this House have examined that application between 9.45 and 10 am today?

Mr. Hattersley: I think that a Committee might consider the application if the aggrieved person wished to do so. I do not suggest for a moment that a Committee of this House should examine every action of the security services. I said so a few moments ago when I drew a parallel between the Committee that should control the behaviour of the police. It is crucial that a Committee of this House is able to deal with the complaints of an individual who says that he has been aggrieved. That is the purpose of the tribunal. It is that purpose which we believe the tribunal cannot properly fulfil.
The third criterion concerns the necessity to ensure that the security services, with their deplorable record in this particular, do not continue, despite the new legal framework, to act unlawfully. That assurance can be provided only by an official secrets Act that does not allow their covert activities permanently to be protected, whether they are lawful or unlawful. Yet we know, from the new Official Secrets Bill, that we are to debate next week, that everything that the security services do must remain an official secret. To reveal it in any circumstances will be an offence. If MI5 bugs and burgles without warrant, anybody who reveals that he has broken the law is himself or herself breaking the law. The aura of secrecy with which the Bill that is to be debated next week surrounds the security services disqualifies the Bill from our support.
It also reduces—this is the point that I was struggling to make to the Home Secretary—the tribunal's effectiveness when investigating complaints. I refer to the tribunal that is to be established under clause 5. During the debate on the Loyal Address I asked two specific questions about the tribunal: first, whether there was any appeal against its decisions and, secondly, whether its decisions could be questioned in court. The Minister of State replied to neither of those questions. I assumed that that was because he did not know the answers. I realise now that it was because he knew the answers. The tribunal's judgment cannot be questioned in court. There is no appeal against the tribunal's decision. It is farcical to suggest that, for an aggrieved party, that can be considered to be a safeguard that is comparable to supervision by a Committee of this House.
Those parts of the Bill that deal with the powers and duties of the commission and tribunal, both clauses and schedules, show how little restraint and protection those two institutions will provide. The obvious example is paragraph 3 of schedule 1. If a man or woman complains that the security services have given information to a prospective employer, the tribunal may examine whether the information is accurate. However, the real cause of complaint is not the accuracy of the information but the propriety of information about a free individual being passed from hand to hand. To examine that great abuse—the principle of improper vetting—is not within the tribunal's capabilities.
The idea that such a scheme should provide adequate recompense for offending citizens or adequate protection against wrongdoing is absurd. Against the background of a system that is cloaked in complete secrecy and of a definition of powers that gives absolute discretion to the Home Secretary, the tribunal becomes no more than window dressing.
In some ways, the Bill is window dressing from start to finish. We know—the Home Secretary confirmed it to me—that the security services wanted the Bill. I have no doubt that at last they have become conscious of the enormous and unjustified criticisms that have been recently directed towards them and that they decided that a minimum legal framework, which allowed them to operate much as they had done before, was the best way to avoid a continual campaign for greater efficiency and genuine accountability.
I want to assure the Home Secretary that a campaign to improve the performance and to increase the accountability of the security services will not go away. We shall continue to argue for a system of parliamentary scrutiny. Until we achieve it, we shall continue to press the Home Secretary properly to discharge the duties which—

Mr. William Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No.
We shall continue to press him properly to discharge the duties that, because of this Bill, he has been able to pretend he has acquired. We shall try to question him, but he will no doubt refuse to answer—as is the practice and convention. When next there is a security scandal we shall attempt to hold him responsible, but he will no doubt say that that is not a proper subject for debate in this House. He will simply refer to the clauses that demonstrate that anything he has approved is lawful. That response will only hasten the day when we have a proper Security Service that is under proper control and proper supervision.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I was quite convinced, at the end of it, of two things: either that he knows very little about the subject or that he does not want a Security Service in this country. He sought in every way to undermine what the Security Service is bound to do.
I have a few points to make about the Bill, which I believe is extremely important for the safety of every individual in this country. The Bill is timely. There are details that need to be looked at, but it gets the answers about right.
What stands out is the relevance, the succinctness and the clarity of the original Maxwell Fyfe directive that was drawn up by a former Labour Government. It is still relevant today, 36 years later, except in one respect: that it is not a statutory provision. That is what the Bill intends to put right.
It is interesting to dwell for a moment on why it has taken so long since the second world war for the Security Service to be placed on a statutory basis, in place of the directive to the Director-General of the Security Service on his appointment by the Home Secretary. This country believes, more than any other country, in a free society. It


has shed as much blood as any other country to destroy the worst police states in our history. Incidentally, this country has had Labour Governments for almost 19 of the 36 years since the Maxwell Fyfe directive. For nearly 23 years since the second world war, there have been Tory Governments.
Why has it taken so long to place the Security Service on a statutory basis? The answer must be significant. The reason is the long-standing belief of no fewer than nine Prime Ministers —three of whom were Labour and six Tory—their senior permanent secretaries and a number of senior distinguished judges that Britain's Security Service, however imperfect, was best safeguarded by the Maxwell Fyfe directive. It was not until the treacheries of Blunt and others were revealed, and certain dubious revelations of illegality by worthless creatures such as Wright, and the genuine telephone tapping incident, that the requirement of a statutory basis appeared on the menu. In my view, not least of the reasons was the need for the improvement of morale and well-being among those who staffed the service and had done so for a long time.
I entirely disagree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, as I consider that the legality issue is faced squarely and set down in clause 3. It is nothing new. Many of us in younger days had to be trained in security matters for previous emergencies. I can certainly vouch for the emphasis placed on the individual's responsibility for acting lawfully at all times, if necessary through the authority of the warrant system. Hence a close relationship has always been maintained with the police authorities. If all those lurid stories that sell so well on the bookstalls are true, the individuals have not been acting lawfully. If they have not been acting lawfully, they are on their own, as any individual in Britain who does not act lawfully is on his own.
If nothing else, what is spelt out in clause 3 must be a confidence-building exercise, in that the Security Service must act lawfully at all times, throughout the warrant system which is also scrutinised by the Commissioner for the Security Service as is laid down in the Bill. That is what we have to aim for.
As for the contentious matter of parliamentary oversight, I believe that it would be totally wrong and would be harmful to the security of British people and must be rejected. A year or two ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used the very good description, "those inside and those outside the barriers of secrecy". He was then quoted by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. In cases of security, those inside the barriers of secrecy must be limited to the fewest possible people. The idea of matters of secrecy being open to the members of a Select Committee, however eminent and responsible they are, increases enormously the risk of secrecy being blown. That is why those who remain inside the barriers of secrecy must be as few as possible.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boscawen: No. I shall speak for a short time, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I must get on.
More than anyone else, those with the continuous burden of the highest responsibility of office must be inside

the barrier of secrecy. They would be the Prime Minister and I understand, for administrative reasons, the Home Secretary. For reasons which we have heard, the Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for issuing the warrants and is answerable for that. I do not believe that it is sensible or wise to spread information and secrecy on what the Security Service is doing, particularly in its operational duties, beyond those two Ministers.
Ex-Home Secretaries, ex-Law Officers and ex-senior Cabinet Ministers, however eminent in office, are different animals without their official pressures. They are under different pressures, often of a highly competitive nature, inside the House. Many of them are working to regain office. That is their duty. Many of them are working hard outside the House on other personal matters. I do not believe that they are the right animals to hold the tremendously responsible position inside the House of scrutinising and overseeing the Security Service.
In my humble position as an ex-Whip—after 10 years in the Whips Office, where one has the opportunity to observe human nature in the House—I certainly do not have the confidence that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and some other Opposition Members have in their colleagues to maintain the enormous responsibility of secrecy that would be required of them if they were to be in charge of overseeing the Security Service.
Finally, if a Select Committee was in the know, as my right hon. Friend pointed out many times, what could its members reveal to their colleagues if they had misgivings about what was going on? They could go only to the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary of the day and tell them about their misgivings. They could go to no one else, so what advantage would there be to the House and to Back Bench Members on both sides? It is a foolish proposal. It is significant that, in all its years in government, the Labour party never sought parliamentary control of the Security Service when faced with the realities of office.
The Security Service depends on the morale of those who give long years of toil within the barriers of secrecy. On it depends the better defence of freedom from the violence for political ends in Britain that is so close to us today. It is vital that nothing in the Bill undermines the value of the Security Service to the safety of our country.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) and other Conservative Members have suggested that what we are proposing, or the outcome of our proposals, would be unfair to the Security Service or to people working within it. However, there have been gross injustices to people in the service in the past, in particular because of the way in which some accusations have been made in recent years.
There could not be any more serious charges against a man of distinction who served the Security Service than the charges that were made against Roger Hollis. Those charges were investigated a number of times. I remember the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box announcing to the House that all the investigations had shown that the charges were quite false and quite misleading. None the less, charges against Roger Hollis continue. They have been taken up by Peter Wright—although some of us do not pay much attention to him—and Chapman Pincher,


who is occasionally given special favours by various Governments for his work. It is grossly unfair that the charges against Roger Hollis continue.
Anthony Cavendish who I believe was employed by the Security Service, tried to come to the aid of Roger Hollis to defend his good name, but his information was suppressed. It is unwise and improper, and it does not serve the House of Commons and the nation, if that happens. The present system can be grossly unfair to former servants of the Crown. People such as Roger Hollis can be maligned in a scandalous way without any successful repudiation of the charges. I am not complaining about the Prime Minister's actions—she tried to come to the defence of Roger Hollis at one stage—but members of the Hollis family have a right to feel outraged by what was said about him and about the fact that there was insufficient right to reply.
The Home Secretary said that he would not enter into details about the past. I can well understand that, but obviously the Bill has been introduced because of some of the events of the past. If the Government were as content as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome with what happened in the past, there would not have been any purpose in their coming forward with the Bill. They have been in a dilemma about whether to present the Bill as a great reform or as a measure that will not make much difference. The Home Secretary has done his best to make the Bill more than it is. He has tried to present this fig leaf of a Bill as though it were a virility symbol of Freudian proportions. However, the Bill has very little in it and will not make much difference to the way that the security services operate. That is one of our complaints.
We have serious complaints about what has been revealed in the recent past. There has been nothing like sufficient investigation or explanation, especially about Peter Wright's revelations and many others. It is all very well the Government saying that they will not go into past matters, that it is a matter of history and has nothing to do with the present, but those past matters are the background to the Bill. If it had not been for all the past events, the Government would not have proceeded with the legislation. In saying that he will not go into past events, the Home Secretary is saying that he will not be going into the reasons for the Bill. There is grave suspicion about the Government's actions because they have steadfastly refused to inquire into the revelations.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, as late as 14 February this year, the Sunday Express devoted most of its front page to a photograph which had been released to it by the security services, smearing a former Labour Minister, Lord Diamond? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a test of the new spirit of frankness which is alleged to be abroad if, in summing up, the Minister were to tell us who leaked that photograph and why?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I should be happy to hear a reply by the Government, although I doubt whether they will attempt to do anything of that kind. If the Government will not give us any information about some of the matters which have been discussed throughout the country over the past year and a half, I doubt whether they will come forward with any information to answer my hon. Friend's questions.
A Government who have done what this Government have done over the past year and a half cannot wash their hands of the matter. We might have looked on the Bill with more favour if the Government had had a splendid record of defending civil liberties at every turn, of showing great sensitivity to threats to bring injunctions against newspapers and of introducing novelty in the scale of security operations. We have not had such a Government. The Government have engaged in peppering and pestering the newspapers with injunctions on a scale never seen before. The Home Secretary laughed about that, and perhaps some newspapers deserve to have their stories stopped, but I doubt whether that is a proper way for a free country and Government to operate.
The Government have refused to allow any investigation into Peter Wright's revelations and the associated revelations. The Prime Minister may say that she is weary of these issues. I have had long correspondence with her over the past year or so. When revelations were made in the Wright book about the attempted action against the Labour Government—the primary matter in the book—and other matters, I believed that it was of paramount importance that inquiries should have been made. The revelation about the Suez plan prepared by the Secret Service for the assassination of President Nasser was important, if it were true. Even if it were not, it was still important. We did not have a proper inquiry into that matter.
Only recently, judges have pronounced on the way in which the Government behaved. I am glad that some emphasised how seriously they regarded such allegations and said why it was necessary, to have some means to investigate these matters properly. Up until the present, the Government have refused to have any investigation into those charges. Now the Home Secretary tells us that he is going ahead with this legislation, and the other legislation which will be introduced next week, without giving an answer to the House of Commons about any of the revelations.

Mr. Allason: I know that the right hon. Gentleman likes to keep up to date in these matters. Is he aware that Peter Wright has admitted on television that his tale of a conspiracy against the Labour Government was sheer fiction?

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman is so inaccurate in his reporting of facts in his books as he is in the House of Commons, we shall have to watch carefully what he writes. He has misreported even Mr. Peter Wright. I fully understand that there are often good reasons for not treating Mr. Peter Wright with great respect.
The Government have been engaged in great efforts across the world, at great cost to the reputation of senior civil servants and of the law. The Wright case eventually was tried in this country. The judges' verdicts are a judgment of the way in which the Government behaved throughout the proceedings and a judgment of the case that they were asked to try. These matters cannot be brushed away as easily as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) or anyone else has suggested. It is a great mistake that the Government have never held inquiries. So long as they refuse to do so, the matters will continue rumbling.
The Government's excuse over many months when the case was before the courts was that they could not act


because it was sub judice. Again, the Prime Minister was possibly saying that we cannot have an inquiry because it may injure the operation of the secret services. Today, the House is asked to proceed to decide on what we shall do in future without any of the information or proper investigation that we would normally have for any other section of the nation's affairs.
The Home Secretary sought to reply to my right hon. Friend's proposals for proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that will become the overwhelming question for discussion. The House of Commons is a much more powerful and versatile place than the Government give it credit for. We hear Conservative Members, including Front Bench Members, especially the Prime Minister, talking as if the House is not fit to do these jobs and cannot adapt itself to carry out the proper work of surveillance over a security system. I am not saying that we should have exactly the same system as the Americans, but if they had had the same system as we have, absolute secrecy, all the revelations about their arms dealings with Iran would never have been revealed.
It would have greatly injured the relationships of the Western world if the Americans had been allowed to sell arms to terrorists without anybody knowing that they were doing so and if there had been no investigation. It would have greatly weakened the whole democratic world if the United States had not had the investigative methods that operated there, whether or not they were initiated partly by the newspapers and were operated through a Congress which had some sort of machinery. I am not saying that we should have exactly that machinery— naturally, we must adapt it for ourselves—but it is nonsense to say that the House of Commons cannot devise methods for dealing with these matters.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to tell the House if, when he was a member of Labour Cabinets, he urged on his fellow Cabinet members the parliamentary mechanism for oversight which he is now recommending, or is that a secret within the Labour party?

Mr. Foot: That is not a secret. The proposal for a parliamentary surveillance of these matters was not one that I raised in Cabinet, but there is strong case for it. All the evidence and outpourings of the activities about the security services in recent years confirm the good case that my right hon. Friend has made.
Yesterday there was some talk about insults to the country. It is an insult to the House of Commons to say that we cannot devise a proper method for dealing with the Security Service and making it properly answerable. If anybody says that cannot be done, my advice is to look back at the ways in which the House of Commons in times of extreme danger has decided that it can waive rules or devise machinery to investigate dangerous affairs of this kind. That should have been done when the Peter Wright revelations were coming out.
During the first world war, a Select Committee was set up to inquire into why there had been such a catastrophe at Gallipoli and to take evidence from many different quarters about the reasons for it. The strength of the House during that war was partly because it devised a means by which it could discuss even such secret matters

as the operations that led to the Gallipoli disaster and partly because it learned lessons from that. Some people at the time said, "You cannot allow a Committee of the House to inquire into these matters; they are much too secret in wartime," but fortunately for the nation, an inquiry was carried out. It was one of the most important inquiries in the war in changing the way that people looked at the conduct of the war.
During the second world war—I watched from the Gallery—the House of Commons inquired into many matters. It even had secret sittings. Some Members did not like that. It is incredible to think of a secret sitting with almost every Member present. It discussed matters of the utmost importance. Some thought that if different views were taken, it could give some advantage to the enemy. But others thought that it was much more important that the Government should establish their good faith before other hon. Members and that that risk should be taken. They thought that it was much more important that Ministers should be called to account and should give answers.
Churchill, who knew something about these matters, was prepared to act in that way. He had secret committees on many matters, inquiring into questions infinitely more sensitive than many of those covered by the Security Services. If both this Bill and next week's Bill are carried, no future Churchills will write their memoirs. If ever the historical writings of any great figure in this House were stuffed with official secrets—I bet that not every one was vetted and passed—they were Churchill's. He thought that he had a better idea of what was an official secret than any officious security officer who might tell him otherwise, and that is often the case. Above all, Churchill was answerable to this House, and he trusted it.
Even in the much lesser event of the Falklands war, it was necessary that there should be a proper inquiry into how the country got into the war. The Prime Minister was not eager that it should be the size that it was. She thought that we must have a smaller inquiry because it would be a bit dangerous to have as many as six or seven Members of Parliament investigating. Some of us persuaded her—she is not always easy to persuade—that she must have a committee that could both inquire and command the confidence of the House. If it was to have the confidence of the House, it could not consist of one or two hon. Members; it had to be a bit larger. Some of us thought that it might have been a bit larger still.
A great deal of secret information and information about security, and many official secrets went before that committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was on that committee and will vouch for what I am saying. If that evidence had not been available, the report would have been worthless. It is not the case that this House cannot devise means of dealing with these questions.
During recent weeks and months, the Government have taken measures on a series of events to restrict the freedoms that we have previously accepted as natural, which we have taken for granted. I shall not go through the whole long list, but they include the proposed interference with the right to silence, interference with the rights of people to report terrorism in Northern Ireland, and the introduction of an identity card system. There is a list of different measures which infringe some of our elementary rights.


Nobody believes that those matters, including some of the provisions in the two Bills on this subject, are the outcome of the cool analysis or—what was the phrase of the Home Secretary?—the "cool consideration" of the Home Office and the Government. They are not. They are the result of the paranoid spasms of the Prime Minister. She comes along and says, "We must settle these questions in a particular way overnight, whatever the objections, criticisms and obstacles." The Home Secretary's way of dealing with these questions over the years has been governed much more by that factor than by any so-called cool consideration of all the factors involved. I hope that that pressure will be sustained.
I have not the slightest doubt that eventually the House will have enough dignity and determination to establish over the security services the right that we have over every other activity in this country—the right of surveillance. It can be done without injuring the nation's security or the way in which it conducts its affairs. All that is needed is for hon. Members to have a little confidence in this institution, which still has the power and capacity to adapt itself to any such needs.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) put his finger on a curious paradox that is one of the central weaknesses of the Bill. He said that the Bill has come into existence only because of past events. Looking forward to the future—remembering, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, what a "small fig leaf' the Bill is—there is little hope that future events will be handled differently. It is to that central weakness that I shall devote most of my attention.
I should like to give the Bill a qualified welcome. It is a sensible initiative to place the Security Service on a statutory basis for the first time in its 80-year history. When such a first attempt to legislate is made, it is perfectly natural that there should be some unease and debate about whether the activities of the Security Service, as defined in the Bill, infringe civil liberties. That unease, which has come mainly from the Opposition, would largely have been alleviated if the Bill had been drafted better. Sometimes parliamentarians criticise the Foreign Office for making a mess of legislation because it has so little experience of bringing Bills before the House. Poor old MI5 has had no experience of bringing legislation before the House, so perhaps it is not surprising that, by professional standards, the Bill has been poorly drafted and has many grave flaws.
If one wanted to choose a fundamental flaw in the drafting regarding the lack of political interference by the Security Service, one could do no better than make a comparison with the rather splendid words of the Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952. Paragraph 4, which deals with political interference, says:
It is essential that the Security Service should be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence, and nothing should be done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any particular section of the community or with any matter other than the Defence of the Realm as a whole.
Those words have a splendid ring to them and compare favourably with the extremely modest sentence in clause 2(2)(b), which asks the director-geneal to ensure
that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party.

A quite different dimension of restraint of the Security Service is contained in the Bill than that contained in the famous Maxwell Fyfe directive. I dare say that we shall tidy up much of the drafting in Committee.
The big issue in the Bill, which is the first in the history of the Security Service, is probably not civil liberties but the confidence, effectiveness, efficiency and judgment of the Security Service. The Bill should be judged by what it does to improve, enhance and strengthen the Security Service, which is certainly needed in today's world. Judged by that test, the Bill is extremely disappointing.
There are many omissions in the Bill and many opportunities have been lost. The most recent controversy was the Wright brouhaha. Most observers agree that it probably would not have happened if only MI5 had had a decent and fair system of pensions. If Mr. Wright had had a pension, none of this Niagara falls of information would have fallen into the public domain. It is unlikely that many revelations from former employees of the service would have reached the ears of journalists and authors if there had been a clear contractual responsibility by which pensions could be lost following breaches of trust or disclosure of information. The Bill completely misses the opportunity to deal with possible restrictions, definitions or fairer treatment of pensions.
The Home Secretary tackled the subject of oversight very feebly indeed. When he came to this part of his speech, he tried to dismiss the Canadian experience as only four years old, the Australian experience as too new and the American experience as of no relevance. He continuously dodged the fact that we are the only democracy in the English-speaking world that has no system not merely of parliamentary oversight—it is perfectly true that there can be more than one view of this— but any system of independent oversight whatsoever. He did not admit—why should he reveal a state secret, but I will do so—that three successive directors-general of the Security Service have supported independent oversight of some type for the Security Service.

Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. Friend saying that a judge is not independent oversight? Surely a judge is.

Mr. Aitken: I do not think that my hon. Friend quite understands what is meant by "oversight". Oversight, in the sense that it is used by security services in other parts of the world, is some form of continuous monitoring body. It monitors not whether the right warrant was issued for the right telephone tap but whether the structure and operations of the service are being correctly, efficiently and most effectively carried out. At present, that function is exercised by Ministers, which is what they mean when they talk about oversight.
To some extent, I embarrassed the Government the other day, when the Home Secretary was at his peak of reminding us how wonderfully effective oversight by the Prime Minister and himself would be in the future. I quoted from the last ministerial statement made on oversight seven years ago by the then Home Office Minister, Dr. Shirley Summerskill. I will not bore the House by repeating it, but the gist of it was, "We have a completely new oversight mechanism, which has been strengthened and is working perfectly; Ministers are doing a wonderful job, and although there have been faults in the past, you can trust us and we will do oversight splendidly."


That is the same old gramophone record that the Home Secretary played today and during the debate on the Gracious Speech.
However, the extraordinary catalogue of blunders, mismanagement and outbreaks of chaos which followed that statement shows that ministerial oversight failed, for the simple reason that Ministers were too preoccupied and too busy to give the continuous attention that is needed. The fight for oversight of the Security Service will not end with this Bill; it will be a continuous process, whether it be parliamentary oversight or independent oversight by a body such as the Falklands committee. That committee kept its secrets very well, and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent reminded us that the House can perfectly well keep secrets at times of great national importance or on issues of substance.
Nothing in the Bill will improve the management, efficiency and effectiveness of the Security Service or ensure that it devotes its efforts to the right targets by the right methods. It is no secret that the Security Service has not been well managed in recent years. There are times whey it has been spectacularly badly managed. There have been five directors-general within a decade, which is an astonishing turnover in the world of counter-intelligence, where a long perspective is often needed.
Some of the Security Service's recruitment methods are out of the Boy's Own Paper days. No commercial organisation could have recruited, promoted and failed to detect an erratic, alcoholic and social misfit like Michael Bettaney. Even the expurgated version of the security commissioner's report on Michael Bettaney, published in 1985, was one of the most scathing indictments of the quality of management of any Government organisation this century.
We are told that, since Bettaney, everything has been improved. That is true to some extent. Sir Antony Duff, an outsider from the Security Service, made certain significant changes. As a result of his influence, all MI5 employees were given a 10 per cent. pay increase over and above the normal Civil Service increments, to pay them for their enhanced responsibilities —a new reward structure, which, incidentally, Ministers have never disclosed to Parliament. Sir Antony Duff then insisted that there should be a major shift of resources from counter-intelligence and subversion towards fighting terrorism. That was a wise move.
Here again—this is why Parliament should debate such issues—a caveat should be entered since Sir Antony Duff s retirement. We all agree that fighting terrorism is extremely important, but some experienced international observers fear that, with their understandably deep concern for terrorism, the present Government may not have got the balance quite right in the allocation of resources. There is a somewhat simplistic view in the Security Service today that, in this age of glasnost and perestroika, it is safe to lower our guard against Soviet penetration and subversion so that we may raise our guard against Irish terrorism. That view is not shared by intelligence experts on the other side of the Atlantic, who, incidentally, are refreshing easy to consult, in comparison with how difficult or impossible it is to get near their British equivalents.
I draw the attention of the House to a speech by Mr. Robert M. Gates, the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to the Association of Former Intelligence Officers on 15 October. He said:
Since Gorbachev's accession to power, the hostile intelligence threat against the US has grown. Over the past three years we have discovered more penetrations of US defence and intelligence activities than at any time in our history… Despite improved US-Soviet relations there has been an increase this year in Soviet attempts to recruit US sources. I believe the recent choice of Vladimir Kryuchov to be chairman of the KGB will mean an intensification of Soviet intelligence efforts of the US and its allies.
If Deputy Director Gates of the CIA is right about the increased intensification of KGB activities and the increased spending on the KGB by the Soviet Government, it suggests that our Security Service may be getting its priorities wrong.

Mr. Whitney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence by our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Select Committee made precisely the same point as Mr. Gates? Therefore, we must assume—neither my hon. Friend nor I know—that that information, which apparently is in the possession of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is also in the possession of other security agencies, and that they are taking appropriate action to deal with it. Why does my hon. Friend impute such ignorance or lack of wisdom to our colleagues on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend knows much more about this subject than I do. The judgment of priorities and the assessment of threats and macro-political judgments of the kind that we are talking about, is certainly not something that MI5 has done particularly well in the past. My view of MI5 is that, on the whole, it has done its best to do a decent, honest, patriotic, plodding job. The tone of MI5 is the tone of sound mediocrity, often touched with an inferiority complex about its cousins at MI6.
The retired military and police personnel who are so present in MI5 ranks are not the stuff of which deep thinkers are made, yet deep thinking is required on certain aspects of the Bill. The Bill appears to enlarge the role of MI5 and let its officers into new areas in which the qualities of intellect, expertise and specialist knowledge will be required on a scale not hitherto observed at the Curzon street headquarters.
I draw the attention of the House, as did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to the dramatic expansion of MI5's activities as defined in clause 1(3):
It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
Unless that is a quite spectacular piece of bad drafting, it means something very different from what MI5 has done in the past. What does it mean? The mind boggles. It has gone way beyond the Maxwell Fyfe directive. Is MI5 to monitor speculators against sterling? Is it to place the gnomes of Zurich under surveillance? Will Smiley be sent off to the souks of Cairo to make sure that another "Hero from Zero" does not grab hold of Harrods? Is Bulldog Drummond to be sent to the Mexican fastness of Sir James Goldsmith to make sure he is not cornering the market on salmonella-free eggs? What does it mean?
It certainly means that a new type of employee is to be required for MI5 to monitor overseas people who are


posing threats to the economic well-being of this country—LSE professors— [interruption.]—yuppies, as my hon. Friend says, and certainly fiscal wizards.
When I made a few discreet inquiries about what the clause could mean, I was given the impression that I had got it wrong and that it was to do with offshore oil rigs which needed protection, and about the Channel tunnel. That would be confirmed by the rather curious reference to the "British Islands". If that is the case, it is an appalling piece of parliamentary draftsmanship to have a clause which is meant to refer to offshore installations such as oil rigs and the Channel tunnel all mixed up in economic well-being overseas.
It is not a well drafted Bill. Large parts of it are about cosmetics. Clauses 4 and 5 are a couple of sledgehammers to crack nuts. They envisage the appointment of a high judicial officer as a commissioner, three or four lawyers as a complaints tribunal, and a tribunal staff of 12 officers, at a cost of £360,000 a year.
What will they all do? After all, in the 80 years since the Security Service was founded, few real complaints about extra-judicial activities have surfaced, except in the suspect works of Peter Wright. The few genuine ones such as Cathy Massiter's complaint may not be directed at MI5 at all. It is common knowledge that MI5 had great internal doubts and debates about monitoring the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but instructions from higher up made it do it. There is no way that the tribunal will criticise MI5 for carrying out what it was properly asked to do.
Be that as it may, I doubt whether this expensive apparatus will find more than one genuine complaint that it can uphold in the course of a year. Of course it will have complaints from plenty of nutters, paranoiacs and anti-MI5 obsessives, but it will get rid of them pretty quickly, and then it will have no real job. The tribunal will be a sort of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
That brings me to my real grumble about the Bill and the Official Secrets Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to launch next week. There are scores of missed opportunities—certainly in this Bill. There is no oversight, no real reform of the Security Service, no management improvements, and no real expansion of citizens' rights. There is a hollow cosmetic touch to the Bill, once one has welcomed the basic, genuine legal change. It reminded me of the great speech of Lord Randolph Churchill about Mr. Gladstone whom he criticised in 1884 for chopping down trees as his recreation, particularly the famous passage which begins with the words
The forest laments in order that Mr. Gladstone may perspire.
Having perspired, Mr. Gladstone handed out chips as symbols of what he was doing in his wood cutting.
The Home Secretary's policies are similar. The commissioner is a chip for the civil liberties lobby. The tribunal is a chip for lawyers. Sir Philip Woodfield, the staff counsellor, is a chip to the young Turks inside the service who did not like the idea of not being able to report Mr. Bettaney, even when he was drunk and on fire, as unworthy. The legal status is a chip to appease the European Court of Human Rights. It is chips, chips, chips. The Home Secretary is good at those chips and cosmetics, but this is not a lasting reform of substance. Parliament will not be gainsaid indefinitely and fobbed off

permanently with no oversight. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights will be back on some of the civil liberty issues.
As a first step, the Bill is not entirely useless, and for that reason I shall vote for it. However, although it is some progress, it is a story of missed opportunities, and I have grave reservations about it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and to agree with almost every word that he has said. He was right to focus on the inadequacy of the Bill in strengthening the effectiveness of the Security Service, as well to allude to the infringements of civil rights which, undoubtedly, the Bill will do little to remove and, indeed, may make it more difficult to identify.
I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be voting against the Bill, however, because it has failed on three counts. First, it does not properly define the role of the Security Service. If one had any doubt about that before the Home Secretary spoke, that doubt would have been strengthened by his attempt to expound the provisions of clauses 1 and 2, which, far from indicating that the Bill was squarely based on the Maxwell Fyfe principles, or the definitions of national security as set out in 1975 by Lord Harris of Greenwich, showed that the Bill goes a great deal further than that. It also has some catch-all provisions, which will enable those in the Security Service—almost unchecked—to carry out investigations on or interferences, as they are called, with individuals and their property, which almost certainly would have fallen foul of the law in the past.
Secondly, we shall vote against the Bill because, although it purports to provide a remedy for aggrieved members of the public, it is difficult to see how that remedy will be effective. It in fact removes the redress that the individual citizen has at present, by providing a system which excludes the purview of the courts.
Thirdly, we shall vote against this measure because the Bill entirely fails to provide for effective scrutiny and parliamentary accountability, which I believe is increasingly recognised, not only in this country but in other parliamentary democracies, as appropriate for the Security Service as it is for other Government services.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: Because of your appeal, Mr. Speaker, for short speeches and the 10-minute rule which is about to—

Hon. Members: It is on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not effective until 7 o'clock.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful. I would prefer not to give way, although I regret the brevity of the debate.
The Bill is a response to an historical situation of considerable gravity, which has been underlined not just by the revelations of the rogue Peter Wright, but by the more serious revelations of Cathy Massiter, Anthony Cavendish and many other instances of incompetence which have come to light since the end of the last world war. Of course it is correct to move towards putting the Security Service on a statutory footing, provided that the statute deals with the problems which have been highlighted, but plainly it does not.


The continuing practice of the Security Service over the years to scrutinise the wrong people because they belong to a class of individuals who are suspect in certain Right-wing circles and to promote from within its ranks or into its ranks highly unsuitable people—in many cases the agents of foreign powers—suggests that something radical is needed to ensure that this self-perpetuating oligarchy, only sporadically the subject of effective scrutiny, is ended.
The role of the Security Service under the Maxwell Fyfe rubric was fairly clearly set out, and departures from the role were clearly matters that required to be remedied. However, under clause 1, there must be considerable anxiety about the extent of the powers and functions of the proposed statutory service. The use in clause 1(2) of the definition of the protection of national security, and the continuation later in that clause of the description of particular threats, appear to allow the Security Service to decide that many matters not particularised also raise issues of national security; that I am anxious about. It is an open door to pursue hares which are inappropriate.
It is disturbing, too, that the wording of the Harris of Greenwich rubric is not in fact precisely reflected in clause 1. Those provisions of the Bill provide for protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents and foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means. Those are three separate categories.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs was only satisfied by the Harris of Greenwich definition of regional security because those two latter categories were linked together. The Select Committee—which the Home Secretary wrongly invoked in support of the Bill—did not consider that it was satisfactory to have these as separate categories. That last category has given rise to criticisms in the past that the Security Service has too readily focused upon political, not security, issues. That the Cathy Massiter type of revelations will continue unchecked is something that must worry us.
The concept of subversion, which clause 1 appears designed to define, has been found unhelpful in other security services. It is noticeable that, in the past year, the Canadians have specifically excluded subversion from the purview of their security service. I believe that we should have taken the opportunity to do likewise in this Bill.
I found compelling the remarks of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in an earlier debate on the matter. Speaking as a former Home Secretary, he described the inappropriateness of those who are living and moving in the fevered world of espionage, applying their minds to whether certain behaviour was subversive or simply legitimate dissent.
I doubt whether the proposals for remedying grievances are much of an improvement on the provisions of common law. They provide limited rights but are not subject to appeal to the courts. They do not seem to provide for circumstances that have been complained of: that smear campaigns have been conducted for political purposes, or that a former Prime Minister believed that MI5 had tried to undermine his Government. Such complaints will not be examined by the tribunal that will be set up and will

certainly not be examined by the commissioner. Nor will complainants be given reasons for the decisions of the tribunal.
No adequate remedy is provided, and in any event it is highly unlikely that evidence will be available on which complainants could mount a case to the tribunal—certainly in the light of the linked provisions in the Official Secrets Bill, which will come before the House next week, which make it an offence for a member of the Security Service to reveal any misdeeds in the service.
The third and most important defect of the Bill is the lack of accountability. The Home Secretary's view, which he repeated today, is that to give some accountability to any body other than himself is to breach the necessary secrecy. He has spoken repeatedly of the barrier of secrecy. Those who are within that barrier include himself, the Prime Minister and a few others for specific purposes.
I take no great comfort from the proposed appointment of the commissioner. His role is much more limited than that described by the Home Secretary. It is confined to the propriety of the handling of warrants and he is not allowed to examine policy, efficiency, value for money or any of the matters that Parliament is entitled to consider.
On value for money, it is extraordinary that a service that costs the country more than £100 million per annum is accountable to the National Audit Office only through the certificate of a Minister that the money has been spent. That will not suffice. Even the financial responsibility for the service is inadequately provided for.
The gossamer-thin arguments that the Home Secretary used to disregard the evidence of what is happening in other countries show the frailty of the Government's case in general. It is possible for individuals to be chosen by the House who are responsible and perfectly capable of straddling, or going within, the barrier of secrecy. He has preferred instead to bring within the barrier of secrecy as the commissioner someone of high judicial office.
In the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Home Secretary said, in relation to a body that may be set up to scrutinise the workings of the Security Service:
If the body knew all, it would know that it could say little to the rest of Parliament without damaging results. If it knew little, it could say nothing with any conviction".—[Official Report, 23 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 123.]
Parliament would prefer to play some part in the choice of those who are appointed to scrutinise, or to stand at the Secretary of State's shoulder, as he put it. If those great powers—they are necessary powers—are to be applied without infringing fundamental human rights and freedoms, Parliament must discharge its role more precisely by appointing a body that is accountable directly to it. We cannot simply rely upon the assertions of the Ministers that all is well.
The acceptance of that principle of Executive convenience is an abandonment of our democratic responsibilities, and that is why we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. John Wheeler: I shall resist the temptation to go down the byways of the past to review the history of the service and some recent events that may apply to it. I shall concentrate on what the House must consider.
For the first time, the Security Service will be placed on a statutory basis and Parliament is invited in clause 1,


which has been carefully drafted, to define the function of the service. Clause 2 defines the role of the director-general and the line of accountablility from the person in day-to-day management of the service to the Home Secretary. That is reaffirmed as the proper form of control, and I support it. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are accountable to the House. They are both elected Members of Parliament, who assume that accountability by virtue of their appointment to ministerial office.
For the first time, there will be a statutory remedy for members of the public who have complaints about the service's activities against them. I welcome the Bill because it answers the anxiety that has grown in recent years about the alleged illegal activities of the service and its supposed lack of accountablility. Those allegations have followed well-publicised disclosures by former officers of the service.
There is no doubt that, in a parliamentary democracy, the House should have the opportunity to define the function of the service and to set up, as is proposed in the Bill, a procedure for investigating and remedying complaints from the public arising from its actions. Those who work for the service should clearly understand the legal basis for their activities. There should be explicit ground rules and improved procedures for accountability.
The Bill will define MI5's functions as the protection of national security, especially against the threat of espionage, terrorism and sabotage. The director-general is charged with ensuring that the service remains politically neutral.
Under the proposals, the Home Secretary will be given power to issue warrants before members of the service can enter property—something which they do not at present require. I qualify that by saying that the entry of a person on to another person's property is subject to civil law as well as, in many instances, criminal law, and both are complicated matters. An independent commissioner who is a former or serving senior judge and thus independent of the Executive—that point is important—will continually review the warrant system and report annually to the Prime Minister. His reports will be published, subject to vetting on security grounds, and the House will have the opportunity to consider those reports.
The new guidelines will follow the lines of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, which brought telephone tapping and the interception of mail by the Security Service under the law. A tribunal of up to five independent lawyers will also be appointed to consider any complaints against the service by members of the public. It will have the power to call on MI5 for relevant documentation and information. If a complaint is upheld, the tribunal can order an end to an investigation and the destruction of relevant records. Those are powerful and significant requirements.
Furthermore, compensation payments can also be granted by the tribunal, which is independent, and officers engaged in entering property without warrant authorisation may face criminal proceedings. There have been, and will continue to be, calls for a wider parliamentary role in the accountability of the service, as we have heard in the debate this afternoon. I recall that, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs carried out an inquiry into the work of special branch—which is, perhaps, the public face of the security services in some of its activities—we had great difficulty in mounting that inquiry.
One question begets another and the problem is that, before one knows where one is, one wishes to intrude into operational areas; that may put in jeopardy the interests of the nation and the very function of the service whose existence Parliament is being invited to authorise in the Bill. I do not, therefore, subscribe to the view that a special Committee of the House should be appointed or that a Select Committee—the Select Committee on Home Affairs comes to mind—should be otherwise involved in the scrutiny of the service's work.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) used the example of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary being accosted in the street tnd asked for a warrant at 9.45 am. The Select Committee would be in an even less favourable position if it were to be approached to authorise the grant of warrants or, worse still, to be asked to say whether the issue of that warrant should continue. The neat arrangement for the tribunal meets the legitimate concerns of members of all parties for an acceptable form of accountability.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs could look at the Estimates for the financial provision for the service, as could the Select Committee on Public Accounts, because they are a matter of public availability. The Select Committee could examine the report about the work of the tribunal and its findings, but I do not believe that it is either practical or desirable for Parliament to go beyond that.
We have heard this afternoon about the work of other democratic Parliaments and the attempts that they may have made to exercise some scrutiny over the work of their own security services. I know nothing about the details of those operations, but in the fulness of time, I may have the opportunity to examine them. However, I doubt that they could go much further than the Bill's provisions on the work of the commissioner and the tribunal. I very much doubt whether a service that is charged with the utmost secrecy to perform its functions can be made accountable operationally to a Select Committee or a committee of politicians who have other interests and other concerns as the basis of their appointment.
If the service is to remain effective and to serve the best interests of the British people, operational accountability must, strictly, arise from the director-general to the Home Secretary and, ultimately, the Prime Minister. The holders of those offices must remain accountable for their discharge on the Floor of the House of Commons. I see no way at all of avoiding those responsibilities.

Mr. David Winnick: There is no dispute among the Opposition about whether there should be a Security Service. It goes without saying that even if the country was not involved in combating terrorism and drugs, the necessity for such a service would remain. The dispute is whether that service should be accountable to Parliament.
When the Select Committee on Home Affairs—of which the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) was a member—decided in 1984 to make the first ever parliamentary inquiry into the special branch of the police, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who was not a member of the Committee, said that the Committee's decision could endanger the security of this country. As I have remarked previously, we carried


out the inquiry, with some controversy, and produced a majority report and a minority report. Lo and behold, not a soul, including the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, has argued that any damage was done to the national interest, although the Home Secretary at the time, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), was hardly enthusiastic that the Select Committee should look into the special branch.
During the course of proceedings, the Home Secretary made public the Home Office guidelines on special branch. That was the first time that the guidelines had been published and the Home Secretary did not deny that the Committee's decision to look into special branch was connected with the decision to go ahead in bringing that document into the public domain. The hon. Member for Westminster, North is nodding his head in agreement.
I have some knowledge of the minority report because I wrote it. Paragraph 34 of the minority report says:
The security services were outside the terms of reference for this inquiry, but the House may well wish to consider whether the present total lack of Parliamentary scrutiny over these government agencies is really desirable and if it would not be preferable for there to be some degree of accountability to Parliament which would not endanger the safety of the realm.
I doubt whether the Government would have produced the Bill if the Security Service had not been the subject of such continued controversy and scandal, particularly in view of Wright's serious allegations that he and other officers in MI5 were involved in subversive activity against the Labour Government in the 1970s.
Of course, as I have said before, Wright may have been lying, and the only reason that he published such allegations may have been that he wanted his book to sell. The Government have certainly helped him to become a millionaire. However, if there is any truth in his allegations, the questions must arise about how someone like Wright was ever recruited into MI5. Can any Conservative Member say that Wright was wholly committed to parliamentary democracy? Because he did not like the Government of the day and considered it too Left-wing, he decided to commit treachery. What sort of person was he? Are there others like him in MI5? There is a good possibility that he is telling the truth and that others were involved and still remain in the Security Service.
There have also been disclosures from Cathy Massiter. I do not put these two people together. Wright is an out-and-out scoundrel, and, whether he is telling the truth or not, his basic loyalty to this country and to the democratic process must remain in considerable doubt, to say the least. Ms. Massiter,who was employed by MI5, clearly had the most serious reservations about what she was being asked to do. No one has claimed that she made any money out of her disclosures. I believe that she acted in an honourable manner and I am pleased that there are people whose conscience leads them to say that their work is wrong and that they should make that known. I have the highest respect for Ms. Massiter. However, under the Government's proposal, which will be debated next week, for the change of the Official Secrets Act, she would have had no legal defence that she had acted in the public interest. That must cause us much concern, and the Opposition will express that concern when the Bill is debated next week.
Clause 5 of the Bill establishes a tribunal to consider complaints against the Security Service. As the Home Secretary pointed out, that is very much along the lines of what was agreed in the Interception of Communications Act 1985 which also raised considerable doubts among Opposition Members both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I do not believe that the provision in the Bill is an improvement upon the complaints procedure in that Act.
We can be assured that many complainants who apply to the Security Service tribunal will not be in a position to argue their case. Most people will not even know whether they are the subject of investigation by MI5, but even those who believe that they have a case and take it to the tribunal are most unlikely to be allowed to appear in person or—more important —to be legally represented. It will not be too difficult for the Security Service to make out a case that the national interest required such and such a person to be targeted. The tribunal will then conclude that in all the circumstances the Security Service acted in the proper way.
Our crucial concern is not of course, that the Security Service pursues spies or people who genuinely endanger the security of the country. It is right and proper that it should do that. That is what our Security Service should be all about. What worries us is that people engaged in perfectly legitimate political activities are targeted by the Security Service. That is why Cathy Massiter's disclosures are so worrying. She told us that the leaders of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament were spied upon and that, when the editor of CND's journal resigned over an internal difficulty of the kind that all organisations have, he was approached by members of the security services or special branch who were interested in all kinds of tittle-tattle; they wanted to know who had slept with whom and all about people's private lives. What has that to do with the security of the country?
Ministers have told us repeatedly that it is perfectly legitimate to campaign for nuclear disarmament. It does not matter how strongly the Government oppose nuclear disarmament; those involved in the campaign should not be spied upon or have their private lives pried into by people paid by the taxpayer who are supposed to be defending the interests of the state. Opposition Members suspect that CND was targeted because the then Secretary of State for Defence gave direct orders to MI5 to target it.

Mr. Foot: Disgraceful.

Mr. Winnick: As my right hon. Friend says, it was disgraceful.
Take the National Council for Civil Liberties. Cathy Massiter told us that anyone who was on the national executive of that organisation or who was an active member at branch level was placed on permanent record and that routine inquiries were established to identify such people, with police co-operation being sought. Just imagine that.
Why was it decided to target my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who was then the legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties, and Patricia Hewitt, who was its general secretary and who now works in the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: I am afraid that I cannot, because of the time limit.

Mr. Allason: rose—

Ms. Diane Abbott: He knows the answer.

Mr. Winnick: If he knows the answer, he can tell us in his own time. No doubt the House will be interested to hear his explanation.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and Patricia Hewitt are bringing their case before the European Court of Human Rights and that it has been decided that there is a case for the British Government to answer. If those two were targeted, the question inevitably arises how many other people, perhaps less prominent, wer the subject of MI5 investigations or of special branch but did not find out.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: Perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will tell me how much time I have left.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman has six minutes.

Mr. Winnick: Then I give way to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason).

Mr.Allason: The hon. Gentleman asked why members of the National Council for Civil Liberties should historically be targeted by the security services. The answer is quite simple. Many years ago, the NCCL was defined as a proscribed organisation by the Labour party because it was considered to be a Communist front, and the Communist party of Great Britain has always been the subject of surveillance by the Security Service.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful for that explanation. I have never had an explanation from the Government. I wonder whether the explanation that the hon. Gentleman gave will be the one given by the Government at the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Allason: The NCCL was proscribed by the Labour party.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We shall research it and find out.

Mr. Winnick: We have no need to research it; I know the answer. It is perfectly true that, rightly or wrongly, the NCCL was proscribed by the Labour party—at a time when, in all honesty, the Communist party had too much influence in the organisation. I concede that. But those events took place about 25 or 30 years ago. Can MI5 really say that matters have not changed and that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and Patricia Hewitt, who are as committed to parliamentary democracy and its defence as any hon. Member, should be targeted because there was too much Communist influence on the organisation 25 or 30 years ago? No one—not even the Government—could claim that the NCCL is a Communist front organisation now or has been for 20 years. The Communist party probably has no more than 4,000 or 5,000 members now, so it is hardly in a position to have front organisations. That is more a matter for the Conservative party.
No doubt if the Security Service was made accountable to Parliament, the Select Committee — presumably the Select Committee on Home Affairs—would ask the director-general the questions that I have asked. It would not be appropriate to ask about operational matters that would genuinely endanger the security of the country, and we did not ask any such questions when we carried out an inquiry into special branch.
But the broader questions are also very important, and in that respect I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Other Western countries, no less democratic than ours—the United States, Canada and Australia—have concluded that their security services must be made accountable to Parliament. Why should we be different? Perhaps there would be a case if it could be argued that our Security Service had never been the subject of scandal and if we had never had any Wrights; but even leaving aside the Soviet spies and all the rest of it, our Security Service has been particularly scandal prone. Canada, Australia and the United States have decided to make their security services accountable to Parliament, and we have even more reason to do that.
The present definition of subversion is far too wide. I prefer the definition agreed to before the one decided upon by Lord Harris. Lord Denning's definition of subversive seems perfectly all right to me:
one who would overthrow or contemplate the overthrow of government by unlawful means.
That definition would give the security services a far more narrow remit and less scope to dabble in matters that do not concern them.
Britain's security services will remain the subject of controversy as long as parliamentary accountability is lacking. The Bill will not change the position. When the Bill becomes an Act, as it obviously will, Opposition Members will still have Adjournment debates, ten-minute Bills, and all that we are entitled to do. We shall continue to do all that, because we believe that, as in other western democracies, it is essential for those who carry out the sort of work that I have been describing—the broad range of which I do not question —to be subject to parliamentary accountability. We shall continue to press that point at every opportunity.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Government are right to want to legislate, or rather, to put the security services on a statutory basis. Whether they are going about it in the right way I shall come to, but we recognise the pressures that are upon them to do just that.
When Sir John Donaldson, then a High Court judge, now Lord Donaldson, said that we would be naive to suppose that burglary and bugging do not take place, a man sworn to uphold the rule of law has denied it in the courts of Britain. That is remarkable.
But the Government are confronted with something more pressing than that. As has been pointed out a couple of times today, we had two cases before the European Court of Human Rights in which it was argued that it is admissible to take a complaint to that court on the basis that we no longer have the judicial remedies to protect the freedoms and liberties of our own citizens.
It is shocking that the United Kingdom, an early signatory to basic rights and freedoms and recognitions of


who we are as a people, is now almost arraigned in front of the European Court defending our processes and practices.
The Bill is a minimalist attempt to meet the contentions before that court. We have seen it happen before, in what The Times called an insult, in the Interception of Communications Act. That too was minimalist, and one day that too will come before the European Court and we shall be found wanting.
My fear is that the Government, by not taking a direct and central grasp of the real issues that affect the relationship of the security services to a democracy, will also, in time, find that they are again in front of the European Court.
I was interested to hear that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had had his official servants canvass the world to see what other procedures exist. I noticed how, within a couple of minutes, he was able to dispense with those, roll his hands and say, "Well done, we're pretty well done here."
I shall not follow the line of the American experience, but let us take the Canadian one. One difficulty that has always confronted Parliament is that we are unique in having a parliamentary democracy with ministerial responsibility. Therefore, let us take a country which has just such a system, Canada.
Canada had isolated incidents that sadly turned out to be not so isolated when a Royal Canadian mounted policeman, then responsible for his country's security services, unfortunately bombed someone's house. The Government said that those were isolated incidents, but they turned out not to be and the McDonald Commission was set up. Its report was telling. It was called "Freedom and Security under the Law". The concepts are there.
Did we hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom say today that freedom as a concept must be weighed with security? No, we did not. That is what has been worrying me about my right hon. Friend's proposal. He is not weighing the central contentions for the House and for our society. After all, what is the Security Service for? It is to defend our liberal democracy. What is our liberal democracy? It is freedom of speech. It is also freedom to dissent. Let us never forget that. It is an important right that we try to exercise when we are assembled in the House. That is the function of the security services.
When we weigh up the right organisation and the right arrangements to embrace a necessary protector, that is subordinate to the needs of us, as citizens, and to the House of Commons as an expression of what the citizens wish. That is one thing that the Bill does not do.
Let me look at one definition. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly drew our attention to clause 1(2). There is an elision here from what the previous Home Secretary said to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Two branches, or limbs—as I think he called them—are not there in that definition. I do not propose to go over it other than to take from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Bill, with which the Home Secretary will be familiar, the definition of
threats to the security of Canada.
For that let us read

threats to the security of the United Kingdom.
That means our freedom. That is what we are defending.
The Bill deals with the understandable threats of espionage and treachery. Then it comes to the difficult area of what constitutes subversion. Sub-paragraph (d) defines it thus:
activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts"—
note the insertion of "unlawful acts"—
or directly toward. or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overtħrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada".
There is a final important caveat. The passage goes on:
but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d)"—
(d) being the one that I have just quoted. That is a proper definition of the purpose of the Security Service.
When my right hon. Friend and the Government come to weigh those matters in Committee I ask them to look in a more friendly manner on the necessary balances. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), previously a distinguished Whip, I cannot imagine that the House of Commons to which I am a party, can be so subservient as to say that there are things that we must not know or should not look at. The McDonald Commission, in 1,000 pages, asserted vigorously the right to know—the right even of the Opposition to know—what the security services are getting up to, because they touch on our freedoms in the most intimate way. They touch on our privacies and our rights.
How can we be self-respecting if we say, "I must shield myself on the basis of a concept that there are only two people in Britain who must know"? The truth of the matter is that we know that they do not know. The experience of the noble Baron Armstrong in Australia was riveting because we knew what he did not know. So much did he not know that he had to have an instruction from the previous Attorney-General, the subsequent Lord Chancellor, to retract his evidence.
The Bill confirms arrangements that a deferential House has accepted in the past. I notice that the focus for the Bill is the responsibility of the Home Secretary again. Canada and Australia used the Solicitor-General. I just add, in the spirit of Christmas goodwill, that perhaps that responsibility should fall to the Solicitor-General, who can give the time, interest and direction to those matters.
At the end of the day the balance has to be right and that requires—I argue the Canadian course—an independent review committee and an inspector-general with warrants judicially issued and reviewed throughout, and a report to Parliament. That independent review committee of Privy Councillors is presently outside Parliament. That comes up for review next year, five years after it was introduced. I have heard commissioners say, first, that the system works and, secondly, that they see no reason why those nominated Privy Councillors should not be found from within the body of the House of Commons in Canada. We should respect the experience of our cousins, who come from our own institutions and who have pioneered a way better than we have today.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State described the Bill as a big step forward for the Security Service. Having read the


Bill and listened carefully to his remarks, I would argue that rather than a big step forward it is something of a sideways shuffle.
I have read the Bill carefully. Since it comes from a Government who pride themselves on cutting legislation to a minimum, the question that comes to someone such as me, unversed in security matters, is, what is it for? The Bill provides for no improvements in the effectiveness, efficiency or management of the service. Above all, it says nothing about parliamentary oversight. Who, among Conservative Members, can seriously say that there is no need for improvement in the management and efficiency of the security services? To show the need for improvement, I have only to reel off the names of past scandals such as those involving Maclean, Burgess, Philby and Blunt. I remind Conservative Members, that the case of Blunt was kept secret from the Government and the House for 15 years.
The recurrent history of appalling scandals of KGB infiltration of the service ought to make responsible Members consider the need for improvements in management and efficiency. In addition, one senses from reading a number of different accounts that at any given time there will be elements in the service who do not consider themselves accountable to the Government. One does not have to believe a fraction of what Wright had to say, either to Chapman Pincher or in the book, against which an unsuccessful prosecution was brought in Australia, to know that there were elements, even if only half a dozen people, who did not consider themselves accountable to Wilson's Government. How could a Security Service that was serious about being accountable to the Government of the day keep the details of the Hollis investigation from the Prime Minister for as long as it did?
There have been recurrent scandals, and a lack of a sense throughout the service of being accountable to the Government rather than a notional accountability to the Crown. There is an anti-Labour theme running through the activities of some of the members of the security services. When Sir John Hunt, the Cabinet Secretary, was asked to examine the Security Service's activities, one of his suggestions was that the recruitment system needed to be reformed to prevent anti-Labour factions from forming. Do we know what reforms were carried out or how effective they were? Leonard McCoy, an ex-deputy head of the CIA, when interviewed, said that, when briefed by James Angleton, head of CIA, he was told that Harold Wilson was a Soviet Agent. I am not a 100 per cent. unreconstructed admirer of Harold Wilson, but it is an extraordinary way to describe a sturdy west Yorkshire patriot.
How can one take the activities and the loyalty of the security services seriously when remarks such as that come from foreign security agents that work hand in glove with them?
I shall touch lightly on the question of madness in the security services. Sir Martin Furnival, an ex-head of MI5, said, and he should know, that possibly four or five years in counter-espionage is too long because it causes insanity. I shall not pursue the matter further.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) talked about the bad drafting of the Bill. That is cruel to the civil servants in the Box. I am obliged, as an ex-Home Office administration trainee, to stand up for my one-time colleagues and remind hon. Members that drafting can only be as clear and elegant as the political intentions

behind the legislation. The Opposition believe that the political intentions behind the legislation are neither clear, elegant nor coherent. It will not do for hon. Members to criticise hard-working, underpaid members of the Home Office by talking about poor drafting.
The drafting, including that of clause 1(2). is quite extraordinary. It says:
The function of the Service shall be …protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage from the activities of agents of foreign powers".
That is fine. However, it goes on to refer subjectively to undermining parliamentary democracy
by political, industrial or violent means.
Some Opposition Members might say that by abolishing tiers of local government the Government are seriously undermining our system of democracy.
The clause continues by saying that the function of the service is
to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
What does that mean? Is the Security Service licensed to bug and burgle innocent New York stockbrokers who may be engaged in speculation against our short-term economic interest? The drafting is extraordinary, but I blame the politicians.
Schedule 1, which deal with the working of the tribunal, is equally strange. Paragraph 2(4) contains a circular argument. The service can investigate someone because he or she is part
of a category of persons regarded by the Service as requiring investigation".
Under paragraph 2(4) that is acceptable to the tribunal. There is no provision for an appeal to find out what categories of person the service deems to be worthy of investigation. It is as if the service is judge and jury. For example, if the service found a category such as ex-general secretaries of the National Council for Civil Liberties worthy of investigation, that would be acceptable under the terms of the schedule. Therefore, as I have said, the drafting is extraordinary, but I blame the politicians.
There has been much talk by Conservative Members about what Labour Governments did or did not do when they had the chance. As somebody who was not horn when some of those Labour Governments were in power, I cannot take seriously Conservative Members' claim that what Labour Governments did not do is an infallible guide to what the Government should do.
The Bill and speeches made by Conservative Members refer to fears about the undermining of parliamentary democracy. I am sure that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that we all take that seriously. What more serious threat is there to the respect and esteem in which parliamentary democracy is held than for the Government to say that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted with scrutiny or oversight of the Security Service? That has been requested by three ex-directors of the Security Service and is found in every English-speaking democracy. The Secretary of State has undermined parliamentary democracy by saying that elected Members of Parliament, the heart of our parliamentary system, cannot be trusted with what every other English-speaking democracy has. That is an unfounded smear. The Bill represents no great leap forward but a crab-like shuffle sideways. I hope that, even at this late stage. the Government will reconsider.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) said that what Labour Governments have not done should not be a guide to what this Government should do. One thing is clear—the previous Labour Government did nothing about secrecy or the Security Service.
We enjoy with great amusement and pleasure the books and films about spies. Some of them are real and some are fictional. This has been a light-hearted debate. I remember Art Buchwald saying that the best thing that we could do would be to give the Russians our secrets because that would put them three years behind.
But the security of the state and the lives of the people who protect us in the Security Service are precious and important for the existence of the nation. And so we must pay proper regard to the seriousness of the matter that we are discussing.
I believe that most people, including even, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), accept that there must be secrets and that they should remain secret. Most people accept that those who work in the Secret Service should be trusted to keep these secrets, although I do not think that the hon. Member for Walsall, North necessarily agrees with that. However, people are concerned that only things that should necessarily be secret should remain so. Many people believe that criminal sanctions should apply only in cases for which they are absolutely necessary.
Many believe that if the Security Service does wrong there should be redress and that that redress will come only if there are visible signs of accountability. There have not been such signs, and it was to remedy that that the Government brought forward this Bill which, in principle, we should all support.
There is argument about how this acceptability should be achieved. We can all agree that putting the Secret Service on a statutory basis for the first time is thoroughly good. We can all agree that its functions should be set out to protect national security, not political parties. They should be so set out to protect us against espionage, terrorism, and sabotage, and against the undermining of parliamentary democracy. Some of us also think that the state should be protected against economic subversion, although as has been pointed out, the wording in clause 1(2) is somewhat mysterious.
Most of us can agree that there should be a director-general, as there now is, with statutory requirements that he must follow, that information will be available only for certain limited purposes, and that once they have been fulfilled, that information should be destroyed. So there is a great deal of the Bill about which we must all agree—but there is disagreement about the instruments for achieving accountability.
Most Conservative Members do not believe that a parliamentary Select Committee is the best way of achieving accountability, mainly because we are all intensely party-political and adversarial. That is the strength of this place, but we all know that the best of us are liable, in moments of over-enthusiasm and of political bias, to make misjudgments which can be serious if peoples' lives are at stake. I do not want to embarrass any hon. Member, but we all know of many occasions in the past few months alone—let alone in the rather longer time

that some of us have been here—when some hon. Members have made asses of themselves although, in the normal way, they are the most upright, sensible and balanced colleagues. This happens because we sometimes become detached by our political and adversarial status—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that Ministers are Members of Parliament? Surely, if they can be trusted with secrets, when they are out of office they can also be trusted with them.

Mr. Lawrence: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. He will notice that in the Bill which will be published next week the Government propose to take away ministerial certificates which allowed Ministers to say that they were the best judges of what constituted a secret. The Government propose to give that decision to juries. So now, the fact that people—genuinely or otherwise—might sometimes think that a Minister was biased in his assessment of what a secret was, has been recognised, and the decision on that will be left to an unpolitical, independent, objective and unbiased body of people—the jury.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that Ministers have Departments with large numbers of civil servans who can advise them in a considered way, whereas Members of Parliament, who are busy and rushed, have little support?

Mr. Lawrence: I accept that excellent point in support of my argument.
The Government propose an independent and objective structure for accountability. It is evident from the Bill that there are a number of ways in which people will be protected—ordinary people and people in the Security Service. The operation is under the control of a director-general, who is appointed by the Secretary of State who, usually, if not always, and whichever party is in power, has a general sense of balance and reliability when he appoints important people to important positions. The Secretary of State will have the power to authorise warrants for obtaining information from private property.
A commissioner will review the Secretary of State's use of his warrant power—that is new. The commissioner is a senior judge, past or present. He has a duty to be supplied with all documents and information that he thinks necessary. He is required to make an annual report to the Prime Minister which will be laid before Parliament. So the public and Security Service personnel will be protected at a series of stages.
Next, there is a tribunal to consider complaints about activities of the Security Service. If, in the past, CND or the NCCL or anyone else have been unfairly supervised and have had reason for complaint, there is now a structure to deal with that—a tribunal composed of the most wonderful people in our society: four or five lawyers, utterly independent, not politically biased, not people who CND might say had opposite political persuasions. They will decide whether the complaint is valid, they will make the necessary inquiry and they will cause the records to be destroyed and award compensation if necessary.
So, for the first time, we have a whole ramp of protections—from the director-general and the Secretary of State to the staff counsellor, who has existed for some


time and to whom the discontented service man, or woman, can go. There are also the commissioner and the tribunal, and if all that protection and accountability are insufficient, there is always the Member of Parliament. In all this discussion, people have lost sight of the fact that we in this House have direct access to Cabinet Ministers and, in important cases, to the Prime Minister. If secret agents had legitimate complaints to make—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They cannot come to us.

Mr. Lawrence: They could, and they could be authorised to release their information to a Cabinet Minister, to the Prime Minister or even to us. They could not be stopped from doing that.
Some of this ramp of protections never existed before; most have now been put into place in this Bill; and they are all there for the purpose that concerns us all—accountability.
There may be problems in the legislation—of definition and of scope. They can be sorted out as the Bill goes through Parliament, as most of these problems usually are. There is also the practical problem of unbalanced people. I represent a constituency with a lower proportion of unbalanced people than any other in the country—if that were not so, I would not have been voted into this place as its Member of Parliament. But there are still some people who believe that the Security Service spies on them through their television sets and who think that the noises they hear at night are specially directed at them by the Service. Sometimes they think that the electric currents are directed against them. This is a psychiatric illness, for which the only remedy is to suggest to such people that they wear wellington boots around the house so that the currents will not be conducted through them and cause them any disturbance. All those nuts will have access to the tribunal. The American figures show, I believe, that 30 per cent. of complaints fall into that category.
It is beyond denial that the Bill will provide better protection for state servants who feel that wrong is being done, and for people who are wronged by the secret service. It is not perfect—no legislation ever is, but it will—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is reaching the end of his remarks.

Mr. Lawrence: I am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am reaching my last two or three sentences, though I did have to give way to one or two interventions.
The Bill will help to strengthen public confidence in a way that a political all-party committee of the House would not. It is because public confidence is so important to us all that I support the Bill.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I cannot join the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who, in not expressing a vote of confidence in other right hon. and hon. Members, felt that they are incapable of maintaining the integrity of information divulged in the secret proceedings of a committee. However, I join the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in supporting in principle a Bill that places the security service on a statutory footing.
I confess that when the Bill was published, I thought it likely that I would support it in the Division Lobbies, and

I stated as much on a television programme. However. the more I read of the Bill's detail, the more I realised that the absence of parliamentary accountability is a fatal flaw. I drew that conclusion after my visit to Washington during the summer, when I was able to discuss the matter with Mr. Thomas Latimer, staff director of the congressional select committee on intelligence, and to discuss that committee's operations with certain Members of Congress who had business with the committee—if I may put it that way.
The general view expressed to me was that the system worked. One of the reasons why it does not leak is that its members are required to sign a complex document that is exactly the same as that which members of the American security services sign. Committee Members feel bound by that document, and they are people whom Congress feels it can trust.
My own proposals for parliamentary scrutiny can be found in appendix 6 of the first report from the Select Committee of Privileges 1986–87, when it carried out its inquiry into the Zircon affair. During the course of its proceedings, members of the Select Committee were asked to make their own submissions. I made one based on establishing a scrutiny committee that, in its early days or years, would have special responsibility for three areas of activity. They are, first, matters such as the Zircon project, which are reported to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in confidence but are not referred to the PAC's general membership. In making such a reference to the Chairman only, parliamentary accountability is currently provided for—but I believe that that duty should be removed from the PAC Chairman and transferred to the committee that I thought should be established.
The second area is the sums of money shown under defence Votes as applying to areas of expenditure to which they are not in fact allocated; that is to say, laundered money within the defence budget that does not show up precisely under the specified project definition. That area of expenditure was drawn to my attention by the minutes of two previous PAC hearings in, I believe, 1947 and 1963. Clearly, there are laundered areas of expenditure—to which I do not object, if that is the way it must be done to hide expenditure that otherwise would fall under the secret Vote.
The third area of expenditure that could be subject to the proposed committee's scrutiny is the secret Vote itself, which I understand now totals about £100 million annually. So there are three areas that, in the proposed committee's early years, could be under scrutiny without risking too much and, if I am honest about it, without unsettling people in the Security Service and perhaps even in the Government.
Those three areas could have come under scrutiny in order to build within the Security Service and the Department, and among Ministers, confidence in the fact that parliamentary accountability can work. However, there has been no response by the Government to that proposal. I have asked Ministers whether they are prepared to take on board the principle behind my proposals, but to date there has been no positive response. Financial accountability is the way in to scrutiny of the security services. That scrutiny can be undertaken only once that first hurdle has been cleared.
I refer next to subversion, and draw attention to conflicting statements that right hon. and hon. Members may wish to consider. The first concerns the interpretation


of subversion by the Prime Minister when she announced new vetting procedures in 1985. Referring to her own belief of what constitutes subversion, she spoke of an individual who
is or has been a Member of the Communist Party or a fascist organisation or of a subversive group, or is or has recently been sympathetic to or associated with members or sympathisers of such organisations or groups in such a way as to raise reasonable doubt about his or her reliability, or people who are susceptible to pressure from such organisations or groups.
I believe that that is the secret interpretation of what constitutes subversion.
That belief is reinforced by a letter that was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and quoted in the latest book by Richard Norton-Taylor, who researched this subject area in depth. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), wrote to him that special branches are not interested in trade unionists "as such", but
only in such activities of individuals within trade unions (as within any other group or section in society) as are relevant to the tasks laid upon them by the guidelines.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged:
The definition
of subversion
is not limited to possible acts of a criminal nature. In an open society such as ours it is all too easy to use tactics which are not themselves unlawful for subversive ends … Those who are entrusted with safeguarding our democratic institutions from subversive attack must not be prevented from looking into the activities of those whose real aim it to harm our democracy but who, for tactical or other reasons, choose to keep (either in the long or the short term) within the letter of the law in what they do.
Also, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor as Home Secretary, now Viscount Whitelaw, wrote:
The preservation of public order may require information to be kept on individuals who are active in a political movement, not because of the views they hold, but because the activities of the group could be such as to encourage public disorder.
Those are two different interpretations of subversion.
If one adds to them the interpretation given by the present Home Secretary when addressing the House this afternoon, there are three. I submit that the interpretation that will be applied is that of the Prime Minister. That will sow confusion in the minds of the public. In my view, that is the intention, because through confusion the Government will secure what they want—and that is, no change.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Although by the Home Secretary's admission, the Bill is some 79 years late, I welcome it enormously. I should like, however, to know the Government's motiviation. Is it the impending judgment in the European Court? Alternatively, is it the controversy earlier this year relating to the royal prerogative? Since its inception in 1909, members of the Security Service have been told that their work is covered not by statute but by the royal prerogative, but earlier this year that plank was well and truly demolished legally. One

of the Bill's advantages is that it will give a boost to morale in the Security Service, which for years has in effect been working without strict legal backing.
Although a good deal of both optimism and pessimism has been expressed here today, we have not heard much realism. I want to examine a little of the background to the secrecy of the Security Service. The service has not always been cloaked in secrecy. Before the war Colonel Edward Hinchley-Cooke was a regular figure in the media as the representative of the service, and after the war Jim Skardon would give evidence on its behalf without having to be described as witness A, B, or C. Similarly, in the early 1950s the director-general of the Security Service, Sir Percy Sillitoe, was given official permission to write his memoirs.
I do not want to get involved in the business of accountability; I have never believed that the Security Service has been truly accountable to the House. I would, however, like to congratulate the Home Secretary on constructing a bridge over the barrier of secrecy. Last year he told me that it was impossible to bridge. I gave him various ideas then about the introduction of two people whom I described as "non-executive directors" who could be involved in the work of the Security Service, on its directorate, and at the same time could write a report each year that could be supplied to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. I very much regret that instead of two non-executive directors we appear to be getting just one commissioner, but I hope that that omission will be rectified in Committee.
From whom, though, is any oversight committee to hear evidence? If the suggestions that have been made today are followed, evidence will be heard from the director-general, but I feel that that suggestion is fatally flawed, because experience tells us that the word of individual directors-general simply cannot be relied on. Let me cite two examples.
In 1949 Klaus Fuchs was arrested in an espionage case. At the time the director-general of the Security Service was prevailed upon by senior officers to lie to the Prime Minister, because it was believed that if it was revealed that there had been a major blunder and that Fuchs could have been arrested in 1944 or 1945, the morale of the service would be undermined. That is a clear example of the Prime Minister being misled. I might add that the director-general at that time had severe reservations about what happened.
Another much later case is on the public record. It is one of the most disgraceful documents to be publicly available, and was written by the Security Service. I refer to the White Paper on Burgess and Maclean. I urge hon. Members to read it if they believe that advice from the Security Service can always be relied on. It details no fewer than 17 major instances of deception.
Let me explain why I feel that two commissioners are needed. I have described how reports from the director-general cannot always be relied upon, and I do not believe that we can necessarily rely on reports from a single commissioner working alone. Lord Denning, for instance, was taken for a ride by the Security Service. That was the view of many senior officers at the time. A little pantomime was prepared—a completely bogus operation —for him to witness, which he describes in the report in glowing detail. That is another example of a single person being duped by the Security Service.
What about the judicial qualification suggested in clause 4(1)? While I believe that it is a good old-fashioned


British tradition to rely on a judge in such matters, I am not as sanguine as that, or as confident in judges. I would much rather have two commissioners, and I would not restrict their qualification to the law—with the greatest respect to hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House.
I should like the role of commissioner to be greatly widened. It seems to me from reading the Bill that that role will be limited to dealing with the supervision of warrants and with complaints brought by the tribunal. I should like to return to the idea of two non-executive directors who would be involved not in operational matters but certainly in matters of policy judgment, and I hope that that suggestion will be considered in Committee.
The Bill says nothing about what could go into the annual report of the commissioner or commissioners. We know from our experience of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 that the reports by the commissioner under the Act supply less information than we had before. I should like certain detailed questions to be answered on an annual basis in the report. Again, that could be considered in Committee.
There is, for example, the marvellous euphemism "interference with property". I think that it should be a statutory responsibility of the commissioner to mention in his report every year exactly how many warrants have been issued. I do not think that the disclosure of that detail would necessarily undermine operational prowess. It would, however, be of great reassurance to the public to know that there will he rather more in the report than the view across Gower street and the Euston road.
Let me now deal with the Security Service itself. Many reforms have been introduced by Sir Antony Duff in the wake of the Bettaney affair. I remind hon Members who are not aware of quite how appalling that case was that this was a senior Security Service officer operating in the most senior branch of the service, who was promoted although he had two criminal convictions for deception—having also been convicted of drunkenness—and who consumed a bottle of whisky a day. I urge hon. Members to read the Security Commission report on that, because it is utterly damning.
The Security Commission has often been mentioned as having some kind of oversight role, yet within the Security Service it has been suggested that the commission is nothing more than a stable-locking operation. I suggest that anyone who does not agree with that reads the Security Commission report on Michael Bettaney, which illustrates one of the dilemmas placed before the commission. The report contains the statement that Bettaney's erratic behaviour drew attention to him and he was therefore denounced by colleagues, and that that was how the investigation was pursued. What seems odd about that is that we now know in the light of subsequent events that it was Oleg Gordievsky in the Soviet embassy, the KGB resident in London, who tipped off the security authorities to the existence of a traitor in their midst.
That prompts the following question: did the Security Commission lie when it stated that Bettaney's investigation had been initiated as a consequence of the diligence and vigilance of his colleagues? Alternatively, were they lied to, with the best of motives, because the Security Service wished to protect a source? That is a very difficult operational dilemma, but again it calls into question the system of reporting and the difficulties of oversight.
The United States has recently been subjected to the Iran-Contra scandal. What is so odd about that incident is that, although the law, as supplied by the Senate, was broken, there were no penalties for Oliver North or for John Poindexter. I hope that in Committee penal ties will be incorporated in the Bill.
I warmly welcome the Bill. At long last it provides the Security Service with a legal status. It provides for the appointment of a commissioner, which I welcome, although I hope that in Committee we can add a second commissioner. The Bill provides for the creation of a tribunal, which is also warmly to be welcomed. Therefore, I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

8 pm

Mr. Tony Worthington: I cannot, as did the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), claim to have immersed myself in this subject for many years. I have to consider it in a very simple way. According to the Bill, the purpose of the Security Service is to protect parliamentary democracy. However, the Security Service has a unique power with which to undermine parliamentary democracy. We have to ask ourselves whether the Bill—which hon. Members have welcomed in
principle, if not for its content—furthers parliamentary democracy. The answer to that question must he that it does not do so.
Because of its limited powers, the Bill asks us to trust the Government. That request ought not to be made. We should not be asked to trust any Government at any time in any parliamentary democracy, nor should we be obliged to trust any Government. We should be able to ask the Government to tell us what they are doing and to spell out their policies, and then we should be able to subject their policies to scrutiny. The Bill makes no provision for such scrutiny.
In recent years a litany of names, associated with the Security Service, have passed on confidential information. Bettaney has just been mentioned. Ponting, Tisdall, Stalker, Massiter, Wright and Campbell also revealed confidential information. The Government behaved badly in public in those cases, yet they ask us to trust them in private. That is extremely difficult to do.
A Select Committee of senior parliamentarians should be set up to scrutinise the work of Government. To put it in psychological terms, there is a grave risk that both politics and the Security Service attract people with authoritarian personalities—those who say, "I know best," and who also say, "National security equals party interest equals my interest." For that reason an outside influence needs to be brought to bear upon such personalities, whether they are in the Security Service or at the top of the parliamentary world. There needs to be a countervailing force—a fresh wind or a fresh breeze—not to authorise the signing of warrants at 9.45 am but to examine budgets and the range of activities that are being pursued by the Security Service.
Conservative Members will have gathered that the clause in the Bill that provides that no action shall be taken to further party political interests is greeted with hollow laughter on these Benches. In recent years, organisations on the Left—trade unions, CND and other organisations that have sought to scrutinise Government policy—have been subjected, on flimsy grounds, to far too many


inquiries by the Security Service. The Opposition could point to many issues where capitalist activities have undermined parliamentary democracy.
The Bill provides that a person can complain to the commissioner about the fact that he is under investigation. The commissioner can then investigate whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person belongs to a particular organisation. However, the commissioner cannot investigate whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that organisation.
We have to return to what was said by Harold Acton: that absolute power corrupts. That is the safest axiom to adopt. Any inwardly turned organisation becomes sloppy, corrupt and maligned unless questions are asked about it by independent observers. Any inwardly turned organisation—whether it be the Security Service, a professional organisation or a commercial firm—eventually becomes sloppy, corrupt and maligned. As great power is vested in the Security Service, it is particularly important that there should be independent scrutiny.
I am reminded not just of what Harold Acton said but of what Robert Michels said about the iron law of oligarchy—that, even in an organisation with democratic goals, power is concentrated at the top. People do not go to work each day saying to themselves, "I am pursuing the goal of national security. I am a missionary for national security." They construct ideas about national security and interpret it. That can lead to an inwardly turned, hierarchical organisation. Such people easily get out of control.
That seems to have occurred most recently over phone tapping. There have been well-documented reports about it. There were reports in The Observer earlier this year about the tapping of the phones of 30,000 individuals and organisations. The number of British Telecom engineers was reported to have more than doubled. Lord Justice Lloyd may have investigated authorised warrants, but there has been no investigation of unauthorised warrants.
The Bill contains a strange expression. It provides that investigation will not be unlawful if the Home Secretary has signed a warrant. It does not refer to an investigation being lawful if he has not signed a warrant. The result will be that certain people will believe that they are beyond scrutiny. Reference has been made to other democratic nations—Canada, Australia and the United States—which have realised that scrutiny of their secret services is inadequate. We should see this Bill for what it would be if it were introduced by any other nation. We should say that the Bill is inadequate. Even if it were to be introduced by South Africa, the Soviet Union or any other European country, we should say that it would not be able adequately to scrutinise the Security Service. For those reasons, there is growing unease on these Benches.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I have no doubt that the decision of the European Court has caused the Government to think seriously about the Bill.
I welcome the measure and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends feel as I do. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, 79 years too late we have put our secret service on a statutory basis. We should not underestimate the Bill, as it is a major step forward. For

the first time, after years of secrecy, the secret service is defined by statute. For the first time the powers of the secret service and the roles of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister in relation to it are absolutely clear. The Home Secretary's powers are clearly defined by the fact that every interference in the rights of individuals in Britain must be certified by warrant and that warrant can be questioned by the commissioner, a High Court judge. Members of the public can step in and say that they have been investigated wrongly, and there is a tribunal to investigate the incorrect use of power.
Some of my hon. Friends may have reservations about the Bill, but we must take one step at a time, and the Bill should be welcomed. In the short time I am allowed, I shall address some of the criticisms of the Bill which I do not consider valid
It has been said that we do not have a proper level of scrutiny. What level of scrutiny does Parliament wish to take to itself and how effective is that scrutiny? Probably, those who do the scrutinising will not be able to say very much about it. They will examine the work of the secret service but they will not be able to report it or tell anyone about it. As they will be inside the ring fence of secrecy protecting the activities of the secret service and protecting national secrets, clearly they cannot report it. That means that there will be no large debates about it in the House. There will not be a stop on the questions or on Adjournment debates on the activities of the secret service.
Alternatively, the scrutiny could be outside the ring of secrecy. In those circumstances, hon. Members scrutinising the secret service would be supervising only budgets and making general reports and not having a great deal of say one way or the other in the activities of the secret service. That would not be any form of scrutiny.
We have to decide. It seems to me that the first method of scrutiny could be carried out only by a very few select people and they would be tempted to question individual operations and look into day-to-day matters in the secret service. The public and the House would be totally wrong if they thought for one moment that the responsibility for any such scrutiny would rest with the whole House. We have to face the fact that it would then be outside the ring fence of secrecy.
We have a system of accountability which is not enjoyed in the United States. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) spoke about what happened in the United States and we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about what happens overseas. In the United States, members of the committee sign the same declaration that is signed by every security operative in the CIA and the FBI. They cannot tell anyone either. Unlike the United States, we have senior Ministers, members of the legislature, who are answerable to the House. We have that safeguard. They have to answer for the secret service at the Dispatch Box. We have to realise that the fewer of us who know the details of what happens in the secret service, the better it will be for the activities of the secret service. The more people who know, the less likely the secret will remain secret. We have that safeguard and we should stick by it.
The same arguments apply to accountability. If something goes wrong, Ministers have to answer to the House from the Dispatch Box. They have the support of the tribunal and the supervision of the commissioner.


Quite a lot of accountability and scrutiny is provided for in the Bill. The Bill represents a major step forward. We should recognise that the House has far more control over the secret service than ever before.
I emphasise that the Bill cannot be seen in isolation from the Official Secrets Bill. A whole range of items that were excluded from section 2 of the 1911 act have been built into that measure. The test of harm will be introduced into that Bill, which must be seen in parallel with the Bill that we are considering now. Every officer who is worried about the activities of the secret service can now go to the commissioner. A civil servant who has items in his possession that he feels should be brought into the public domain can go to a Member of Parliament. He can risk facing a charge, but the test of harm and the question as to whether it is in conflict with the national interest in any way will he decided by a jury. Quite clearly, in many cases the Attorney-General will find that those matters do not necessarily do any harm and should have been brought into the public domain.
We have a new and sensible structure. It is a major step forward. I welcome it and hope that the Bill will go through the House unamended.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: First, I apologise to the House for not having listened to many of the speeches after the opening ones, but I understood that it would be very difficult to contribute to the debate.
The opening speeches were very interesting, but the Home Secretary slipped from the quality of the debate when he attacked the Opposition for being soft on terrorism. That was an unnecessary claim, and it was particularly mean of him not to give way after making that challenging statement. There is no dispute in the House about our abhorrence of terrorism and our feeling that it should be eliminated. The disagreement is about the methods. We believe that the most effective way to stamp out terrorism is to make sure that we do not slip from our high standards of civil rights and that we do not take short cuts which deny civil rights, because that helps rather than hinders the terrorist.
I wish to raise some questions with the Minister who will reply to the debate. A great many questions have been raised on clause 1—"The Security Service"—and most of the questions have been concentrated on subsection (2). I wonder whether the Minister can tell us a little more about subsection (3):
It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
Exactly what is the "economic well-being" of the United Kingdom is questionable. I am not sure why there should be a threat from people outside the United Kingdom rather than from people within it.

Mr. Heifer: Conservative Members.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes the point: we are edging towards political argument. I hope that there will be more clarification in Committee.
I would have some interest in this subsection if we were anxious to deal with United States imperialism and the way in which the United States tries to impose restrictions on British companies so that they comply with United States rather than British law. I should have thought that,

because our security services are often closely tied in with those of the United States, there may be some problems in practice. I hope that the Minister will throw more light on that subject.
As I understand it, the aim of the legislation is to deal with the security services. Those services must often work through the special branches of the individual police forces. The Metropolitan police are accountable to the House through the Home Secretary, but the rest of the police forces are not so accountable. Will actions carried out by the special branch officers on behalf of the security forces be covered by the Bill? They should be covered if the security services ask those officers to carry out a particular task.
I understand that a two-way process operates between the special branch and the security services. Often, individual special branch police forces initiate surveillance or an action and pass on information to the security services. Will those officers be covered by the Bill" Will the complaints procedure, although weak, cover them?
Vetting, or blacklisting, of individuals is another worry. Large numbers of people in the Civil Service and people who work directly for military contractors are subject to vetting, as are some individuals who supply services to military contractors. I know an individual in Stockport who works for a company that works for Ferranti in Stockport. Although he worked there for a considerable time and had gone in and out of the Ferranti plant, he became subject to vetting and was turned down. He was told that he could not have security clearance. It is difficult to check whether information held against an individual is genuine or whether there has been an error in the collecting of the information. It seems to me from my discussions with that individual that there can be no grounds for him being a security risk.
Under the Bill, will it be possible for such an individual to make a complaint and obtain satisfaction so that he can tell whether the information held against him is accurate? If he is a villain, that will be easy to demonstrate and he will know whether the information is accurate. If he is innocent, it will be almost impossible to tell such a person what information is held against him, and impossible for him to set out to disprove it. We need to consider the vetting procedure carefully.
What about the possibility of the security services trespassing or bugging or damaging property? What is the position with entrapment, or leading a person on so that he may commit a crime? Colin Breeze from my constituency is in custody in Miami in the United States. Clearly, he was entrapped by agents of the American Government into becoming involved in attempting to sell helicopters to Iran. His defence was that he was led on by agents of the American Government into a position where he could be convicted of a crime. What will happen in respect of warrants when what is normally an illegal activity is permissible? Will the legislation cover entrapment and provocation?
How accountable should the services he to Parliament? I have been amazed at the number of Conservative Members who have argued that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted. If we can trust a person to be Home Secretary, Members of Parliament—or some of them—can be trusted with that role. Most Governments would claim that at least half a dozen Members could be Home Secretary. If, in a parliamentary democracy, one says that a substantial number of people in government are capable


of being Home Secretary, one must accept that a reasonable number of people in the Opposition can be trusted to fill that role.
Once one accepts that sufficient people can hold that office, there is no difficulty in finding a group of people who could sit on a parliamentary Select Committee to oversee the responsibilities of the security services. For Conservative Members to say that they do not believe that a group exists in the House that could be trusted with that role is to under-value the integrity of Members of Parliament. It is dangerous to say that, at any one time, only one Member of Parliament, the Home Secretary—or perhaps the Prime Minister—can be trusted with the knowledge of the security of the state.
I have heard the argument that we should not increase the number of people with knowledge of the security services, and that there is always the possibility that information will slip out. If we want to make the security services accountable and to guarantee the right of all
individuals to live in a free society—after all, that is the purpose of democracy—we should have parliamentary accountability, not the weak accountability which the legislation proposes.
I hope that the Minister will answer some of my questions, and that we shall probe deeply into the rest in Committee.

Mr. William Powell: A number of hon. Members have said that the Bill may be 79 or so years late, but that is not my line. I regret the fact that the Bill has become necessary. As a high Tory traditionalist, I admire prerogative powers and the use to which they have been put through many hundreds of years of our history. I regret the fact that developments in recent years with the security services have made the use of prerogative power—which was once so effective—a matter that must be codified in statute. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.
For the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and a number of Conservative Back Benchers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), I support the Bill. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome—the first speech of freedom for him in 10 years—was a powerful contribution, as were the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr Wheeler), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I support all the reasons they gave as to why the Bill sets the right balance of judgment and will be in our country's interests.
There has been considerable discussion about clause 1(2), which states:
The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions' intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.
I hope that hon. Members will not be naive about the vulnerability to blackmail of people in the security services, who may be of assistance to agents of foreign powers. It is entirely right and proper that, in their vigilance in upholding our democracy, the security services

should have regard to blackmail, as it can undermine the democracy that we seek to protect and that they are employed to protect. It is right that they should seek to inform themselves about relevant matters on that issue.
Much of the debate has dealt with accountability. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) conceded, as he had to, that when it was announced that this Bill would be introduced, he welcomed it and said, both on television and in this House, that he expected, subject to its contents, to be able to support it. The question that he was reluctant to be asked and which must be asked and answered is: when he said that, did he have any reason to suppose that the Bill would contain provisions for a parliamentary scrutiny committee? So far as I am aware, in all the discussions on security issues down the years and certainly since 1979, there has been not one word or suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, successive Home Secretaries or any person speaking on behalf of the Government that the Government would welcome, still less introduce, a parliamentary scrutiny committee.
If he gave consideration to that question and still went ahead—he must have known that there was no possibility of any Bill containing that—the right hon. Gentleman was a fool. If he gave that commitment, subject of course to the small print—never forget that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—without considering that question, the most charitable thing that can be said on his behalf is that he will go to his grave saying with Macbeth:
And that which should accompany old age,
As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,
I must not look to have",
because he will have made a grave error.
At no stage since 1979, in any discussions on security matters, has any person speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government from top to bottom suggested that the Government were in favour of a parliamentary scrutiny committee. They would have been complete fools if they had, not just for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and recently underlined so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West.
When we listen to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, several of us feel that in opposition they wish to take part in security decisions or that they wish to be given privy information about matters which have properly been denied them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West said, if a scrutiny committee were to be established, the Opposition would be disappointed on all fronts. They would either be within the walls of secrecy, in which case they would be in the somewhat embarrassing position that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) found himself in on the Zircon affair, or they would be outside the walls of secrecy and would have little knowledge or information about what was happening. What a most disappointing and frustrating experience that would be.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), in an engagingly irrelevant speech, referred to the allegations made against Sir Roger Hollis. If we had a parliamentary scrutiny committee investigating the affairs of Sir Roger Hollis, would we be any the wiser? If it reported one way or the other, would its conclusion be the correct one? Of course not. We know that, to all intents and purposes, half of MI5 think that he was a spy and the


other half are outraged by the suggestion. Only the Soviets could assist us, and even if they opened their files, several of us would conclude that disinformation was being put out and we would get no nearer the truth. A parliamentary scrutiny committee would come nowhere near resolving these issues.
Several hon. Members said that they would prefer the scope of the Bill to be wider. I am glad that it is not. These matters are properly entrusted to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his successors. If the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and for Sparkbrook were to become First Secretary to the Treasury and Home Secretary, I would have every confidence in their abilities to carry out their constitutional functions in this area, as they would be subject, as would anybody holding those offices and having to consider these matters, to relevant pressures of a sort which I am afraid right hon. and hon. Gentlemen simply could not experience. They would be in the operational front line and would have to deal with matters as they arose in the context in which they arose. It is right and proper that those matters should be entrusted in the traditional way, and for the House to have or not to have confidence in those office holders and to be able to question them in the usual way.
The case deployed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and subsequent right hon. and hon. Friends is overwhelming. I give this Bill my enthusiastic support on its Second Reading.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: When I heard the Queen's Speech and the proposal for this Bill, I turned to several of my colleagues, some of whom are on the other side of the House, and said, "That worries me no end because we shall put power in the hands of a Minister." Although we can ask Ministers questions in the House, I do not trust this Government to act on our behalf and in our interests. I might trust them more if they were not so authoritarian, but they are one of the most authoritarian Governments that I remember.
I remember when the Prime Minister referred to trade unionists as "the enemy within". I have not forgotten that. Clause 1(2) states that the function of the service is not only the protection of national security but its protection
from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.
The word "or" is used twice.
Some hon. Members may not be aware that we had to fight violently to get parliamentary democracy. People do not like to be reminded of it, but we cut off a king's head. It must be remembered that a certain amount of force was used. I am not suggesting that there should be further upheaval or that we should cut off people's heads, but there are people in this country who are not wedded to our concept of parliamentary democracy. They are democrats, but they believe that there are other forms of democracy that are better than ours. They could be regarded as subversives. Some of my friends are philosophical anarchists. In some respects, there is little difference between them and the Conservative party, because they are all individualists who believe in individualism.

Mr. Keith Mans: Name them.

Mr. Heffer: I could name a few anarchist Conservative Members; some of them are sitting on the Front Bench.
Philosophical anarchists do not believe in our concept of parliamentary democracy, so they could be regarded as subversives.
Industrial syndicalists believe that there should be a Parliament of working people through trade unions and argue against our idea of a centralised political regime. Are they subversives? Under the Bill, they could be treated as such.
Conservative Members may not have suffered from being on a blacklist. The Observer phoned me recently and said, "We have the list of people on the blacklist in the north-west, and your name figures twice." I said, "Only twice? I should have thought it would have figured more than twice." Where did those people get my name? Who was watching me? Special branch was watching me. I was told by one special branch officer in Liverpool: "You are on our list; your name is well there." No doubt that fact was passed on to the Economic League, which distributed it.
Some people equate parliamentary democracy with the capitalist system. They do not believe that there can be another system, equally democratic, that does not accept capital control. What is meant by "subversion"?
I accept that we must protect ourselves against invasion. When I was a Minister, a chap came along—he never said who he was—and warned us about the Russians and east Europeans. I said, "This is very interesting, and I do not disagree with a word you have said, but does it apply to the Americans and all the others?" He said, "T hat is a different matter; we must be concerned about the Russians."
I hope that the Security Service is not as it is portrayed in "Game, Set and Match". In that programme, they seem to be watching and working against each other all the time. Half the members of the Security Service believe that Hollis was a spy; the other half do not. It would be better if there was an annual congress of world spies. It would save a lot of money—they could give each other their secrets—and a lot of lives, and it would be more sensible than the present position.
I am especially worried about clause 1(2) and the idea of the enemy within. We know that members of CND have been supervised, their phones bugged and some of their houses broken into. I never thought other than that my telephone was bugged. Some of the conversations that my wife has with her mother must be very interesting. The people listening must think that they are talking in a special code. This is a very dangerous Bill.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Sinister.

Mr. Heffer: It is sinister.
Conservative Members have tried to knock the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but he rightly argued for parliamentary scrutiny. It is right that we should have an extended committee. Of course it will not be able to look into every aspect of security, but it could concern itself with internal subversives, whatever that means, and who is being bugged because they are regarded as internal subversives.
The Government know that there is deep feeling in the country that something must be done about security. There is much worry and fear among people about the role of the Security Service. That worry was most apparent when the Wright story came out. We heard that people


were prepared to undermine a democratically elected Government and were looking for dirt to throw at the Labour party's leaders. Mention was made earlier of an interesting book called "One Girl's War". People were entering other people's houses, going through their property and bugging their telephones quite wrongly and illegally. Under the Bill, the Government are legalising something that is fundamentally wrong.
I shall vote against Second Reading and hope that the Bill will be improved. If it is not, I hope that we will all vote against it.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I am genuinely sorry that there is not more cross-party unity on this measure. The division is between those who know much about the Security Service and the rest of us who stick to important landmarks. The division is not between those who think that this is a good Bill, or those who think it is a bad Bill. Almost no hon. Member has suggested that the Bill does not have merit; the main suggestion has been that it does not go far enough.
We have had a most interesting debate. It has been much more interesting than listening to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) at 1.15 in the morning. A number of interesting points were made about the drafting of the Bill, many of which were somewhat churlish. The Bill is relatively simple and easy to understand and is pretty clear and concise. I have had the good fortune, if those are the right words, to sit on two Standing Committees, but it seems to me that the Bill is relatively comprehensible and easier to understand than many others.
We should be clear at the outset that there has been little public pressure for the enactment of the Bill. Few hon. Members have received correspondence from droves of anxious constituents demanding this legislation. The media have hardly conducted a sustained campaign urging us to implement this measure. The public are intrigued by the Security Service. The sense of mystery and secrecy ensures that newspaper speculation about its activities is avidly read and enjoyed, but the basic truth remains that the vast majority of our constituents know and accept that the Security Service is there to protect our liberties and freedoms from those within and without who would see them destroyed. Of necessity, it carries out its duties behind a ring of secrecy.
I go further than that. In spite of the suggestions of intrigue and incompetence which emerged into daylight last year, most people in our country accept that by and large, the Security Service does a crucial and difficult job, loyally and successfully. By its nature, the bad press that the Service has had from time to time is highly partial and, almost certainly, an inaccurate assessment of its effectiveness. However, we must be protected from rotten apples without impairing the operations of the service. That is what the legislation will achieve.
Most people who have no reason to fear the security services accept the balance between the need to protect the rights of the individual and the need to protect the security of the state. They accept also that greater public accountability cannot be at the cost of breaching the

security surrounding the service's operational activities. Therefore, great duty and confidence is imposed on the director-general. Nothing in the Bill changes that key aspect of our Security Service. When Sir Findlater Stewart produced his report to the then Prime Minister in 1947, he said of the post of director-general:
The appointment is one of great responsibility, calling for unusual experience and a rare combination of qualities. But having got the right man, there is no alternative to giving him the widest discretion in the means he uses and the direction in which he applies them.
That must be right. It underlines the fact that, in the end, the director-general is responsible to the Home Secretary for ensuring that the balance between individual freedoms and liberties and the interests of the state is maintained. I stress that I do not believe that there is any widespread disagreement about the sufficiency of that process.
What should be our attitude to the Second Reading? First, I assume from the words used by the Home Secretary during the Queen's Speech debate that the security services wish the legislation to be enacted. If true, that is to their credit and underlines their commitment to ensuring that correct procedures are followed. Secondly, the measure is part of the Government's step-by-step reform of the minefield of official secrets and related matters.
We frequently hear high-minded statements of principle from Opposition Members, when they were in Government, they were either unable or unwilling to tackle such difficult issues. This Government have grasped them. We debate official secrets next week. The Government have also rightly received credit for the Interception of Communications Act 1985. There were all sorts of dire warnings from the Labour party at the time, but the Interception of Communications Act is widely regarded as working effectively and well. In addition, on no fewer than nine occasions, the Prime Minister has made clear and concise statements on secrecy matters that were of concern to the House.
Thirdly, this measure deals with a minority unease, in certain quarters, that the service is insufficiently accountable. There has been some public concern, and some misunderstanding perhaps, about the service's role, but the Bill goes quite far enough to counter such fears. It not only gives statutory authority for the existence of the service but makes the director-general personally responsible under the law for ensuring the political neutrality of the service and underlines that it cannot be used as a party political toy. It lays down the role and functions of the Security Service, and effectively uses a definition of subversion that was used by the Labour party when it was in Government in 1975.
Above all, the Bill sets out what we might call the public's consumer protection measures—the commissioner and the tribunal. The mechanism for a member of the service who feels a need for external complaint was brought in last year. The mechanism for an aggrieved citizen who feels that he is being unfairly treated is now clearly set in place in the Bill. The tribunal, which is able to investigate all complaints except those relating to warrants—they will be investigated by a commissioner—will be able also to award compensation, to quash warrants, and to destroy wrongly kept records.
That is an important step forward. By the nature of the issues that we are considering, it is clearly difficult for an aggrieved citizen to seek redress without breaching the ring


of secrecy that must inevitably exist and without which the effectiveness of the service would be undermined. The great success of this measure is that the Government have now found an ingenious formula for achieving just that. At present there is no redress for the public, but we are now enacting the necessary legislation to protect the right of the individual while not undermining the interests of the state. Opposition Members may care to consider that Socialist New Zealand is following exactly the same course as proposed in this short and sensible Bill. It deserves the support of the whole House tonight.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The only aspect of the Bill that I welcome is that, for the first time, it puts the Security Service on a statutory footing. I said "Security Service", but we are talking only about MI5. Does the Bill apply to MI6 and other intelligence services? There are several intelligence services scattered around the state.
When the Home Secretary introduced the Bill this afternoon, he gave a brief potted history of MI5, but he missed out a key element in the early stages of MI5—that of the Zinoviev letter, which involved MI5 interfering in the politics of the country. It was successful in bringing down a Labour Government. From that, we move on directly to the "Spycatcher" affair, which is the reason for the Bill. Central to the "Spycatcher" affair was the plot to subvert the Labour Government of Harold Wilson. There can be little doubt that MI5 acted outside its powers when it did that.
The Government spread a trail of diversion by taking "Spycatcher" through the Australian courts, claiming how terrible it was that Peter Wright had broken his pledge of silence. When we mentioned the plot to subvert the Labour Government, all we got was shock, horror. There was no action. If the boot had been on the other foot and the Conservatives had been affected, there would have been screams for court action and parliamentary scrutiny. We have had none of that.
Hon. Members know that language is important in Acts of Parliament. I draw attention to Clause 2(2)(b), which the Home Secretary quoted. It states:
That the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party.
It may not do that directly, but that does not stop it running down another political party. It could claim that it was not doing anything to the advantage of any particular party, but it could run down a party.
We know that, if the service decided to run down a party, it would be biased against the Labour Party and the trade union movement, because of the class nature of the Security Service personnel. On the one hand, there are those on the extreme Right, such as Peter Wright, who are in the service because they are cold warriors and are anti-Socialists, or there are the Oxford-Cambridge set, who we know are the ideal models to act as spies for foreign countries. Neither of those groups had its roots in the working class or in ordinary people, so there is a bias straight away against the trade union and labour movement.
I wish now to make a couple of brief but important points. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about warrants, especially when he said that the criteria should be public, precise and limited before a warrant is issued. I ask the Minister whether a warrant that he signs will be authority

to break or enter into the home of one person or, when he signs his name once, will it apply to everyone within a particular organisation? That is what happened, for example, in the case of the National Council for Civil Liberties when my hon. Friend the Member fcr Peckham (Mrs. Harman) had her telephone tapped. The CND, too, was the subject of bugging and phone tapping.
If it will not apply to just one person, why not? Why can the Minister, with one stroke of the pen—for instance, because he is worried about the population of Liverpool revolting against the poll tax—sign a warrant so that the Security Service can break into anyone's property in Liverpool? We need to know why it is not limited to one. The Minister should explain that to the House, because it opens up dangerous precedents.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook that there is no substitute for proper democratic accountability to the House. It was an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members and to the country when a previous Home Secretary said that Lord Bridge investigated over the weekend all the warrants for telephone tappings that had taken place since the 1950s and found not a mistake in any of them. We all know that that was nonsense and a whitewash and unacceptable. The question about the warrants is a serious one, which we need answered.
At the weekend, The Observer described the Bill as "the breaking and entering Bill" which is the serious aspect of it. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that the Bill is not so much about civil liberties. as about the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. I do not agree. if we want to sort out the efficiency and effectiveness of the service, other methods could he used, such as bringing in management consultants. The civil liberties aspect is crucial. For the first time, we are authorising people in law to break into and enter other people's homes, which is a most dangerous precedent. Authorising burglary in that way is a slippery slope, which should worry us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has raised in this House time and time again the death of Hilda Murrell. There were strong reports that her house was the subject of an investigation of a breaking and entering, perhaps by official parties. What happens when, in such a case, the security services have authorisation from a warrant and someone dies? Does the person who killed her say, "I will not go to court. The police must let me go when I am arrested, because I have been warranted to break in. The Home Secretary signed the warrant and said I could break in. I am sorry it was an awful accident and the woman died when she found out I was burgling her home, but I had authority from the Home Secretary"? The Minister should refer to those serious and new implications.
I have thought seriously about the balance argument. We should say that the threat to life could be so important that it warranted somebody breaking and entering. However, I do not believe that that is a good enough argument, because in such circumstances powers already exist in the normal course of the law. A police officer can always arrest someone and obtain a proper warrant signed by a magistrate to search legally, and not without the individual's knowledge. If someone is regarded as a serious threat to the lives of other people, the surveillance should


be done properly. The authorisation of breaking and entering is the most dangerous aspect of the Bill. This is an anti-civil liberties Bill and it is wrong.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in support of the Bill. I shall not follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) except to say that he did not make it clear how parliamentary scrutiny would meet any of the criticisms that he has made. I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who spoke about the drafting of the Bill. It is clear and straightforward to understand. Although I am not a lawyer and have great difficulty understanding many Bills, the intention of this Bill is clear and for that reason I am happy to support it.
Despite having read much of the fiction mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I hope that it is possible to be reasonably objective about the Bill. There is little doubt that, bearing in mind the fact that the Government have no more important duty than the maintenance of internal and external security, this measure is a rational response to recent events and discussion inside and outside Parliament. As a layman, it has been interesting to note the contrast between the constructive points and criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and the weakness of the Opposition position during this debate.
It is especially unfortunate that the Opposition leadership, apparently following a U-turn, now wish to attack the Bill. The Opposition are on uncertain ground here and, although it was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Denton Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I make no apology for reminding Opposition Members that they are on uncertain ground in relation to other aspects of defence and security. One example was the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which was debated last week, and another was the overturning of the Labour party leadership on defence issues at the Labour party conference.
It was clear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the Opposition, although they may mount a critique, have no alternative proposals of any value. They depart from common sense in their approach to the matter. In recent years, MI5 has been involved in creating a network of governmental defences against threats from the extreme Left and the extreme Right. Those threats come from espionage, terrorism, sabotage and subversion. I agree with those who say that we must carefully consider the definitions of those words, and I am sure that they will be discussed in more detail in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was right to refer to the sophistication of some terrorist and related organisations.
The Bill provides greater ministerial control over the Security Service. In the words of the deputy leader of the Labour party—before his U-turn—it is a step in the right direction. Opposition Members have called repeatedly for the necessity for parliamentary control of the Security Service. The call has come at various times from people with views as diverse as those of the right hon. Member for

Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on the Right and of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on the Left.
To widen through parliamentary scrutiny the number of people who, to use the phrase, "need to know", flies in the face of common sense. There have been many convincing speeches by Conservative Members which explain why it would be wrong to break the barrier of secrecy and to go outside the tradition in this matter. Even a person who knows little about the secret services in this country must accept that it would be wrong to do that. I have been further convinced by the arguments that I have heard this evening.

Mr. John Greenway: It has been suggested in the debate that the Security Service sought to bring down the Labour Prime Minister in the 1970s. As the head of the Security Service was unable to detect what was happening, how could a Committee of the House have any better opportunity to find out what the Security Service was doing?

Mr. Thompson: I accept that argument.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in May 1985:
The need for external oversight has been argued at length in the House and came up again during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill. All Governments run the security services in the same way and on the same lines, because they know they are in power that that is the best way to run them. They must run under unified management. They cannot be referred to an external group."—[Official Report, 9 May 1985; Vol. 78, c. 897.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has emphasised that point well, and I agree with it.
The suggestion of the opponents of the Bill would risk the confidence of our allies in the secrecy of operations of our secret service. The Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, in his "Spycatcher" judgment, said:
It may be that the time has come when Parliament should regularise the position of the service.
That is exactly what the Bill seeks to do, and that is why it is a good Bill. I find suspect many of the criticisms that I have heard tonight.
The vital responsibilities of the modern Security Service—MI5—stem from its great and rapid expansion during the second world war, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described in his opening speech. The recent priorities of the Security Service have been determined by the extent to which hostile intelligence services had succeeded in the 1930s in recruiting ideologically motivated spies in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made it clear that he did not fully understand the Bill, because he kept referring to the secret "services". It is clear from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and from the wording of the Bill that we are discussing the secret "service"—MI5.
I believe that it is a good and well drafted Bill. The arguments, particularly by Conservative Members, mean that it should have the full-hearted support of all hon. Members tonight. It is sad that we do not have cross-party unity on this important issue affecting the defence and security of this country.

Mr. Stuart Randall: We have had an interesting and informative debate on the Security Service and the Bill. It has become clear to me that the question of scrutiny, or accountability, is now firmly on the political agenda and that it is only a question of time before some mechanism is introduced to enhance the accountability of the service. That would improve not only the confidence in the service and the outside perception of it, but the feeling of trust that we have in the service.
Every hon. Member—with no exceptions—who has taken part in the debate believes in the need for an effective and efficient Security Service to look after our national interest and protect our parliamentary democracy. There is no dispute about that. The dispute has been on the balance between national interests in security terms and civil liberties. The Government have got the skew wrong and have taken too little account of civil liberties.
During the debate on the Queen's speech, the Home Secretary referred to the Bill as "an essay in openness." Essentially, however, the Bill is about maintaining MI5 as a closed and secret society. The inevitable consequence is that the freedom of the individual is impaired through the intrusion of the state into his private life.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government "had the skew wrong" and implied that civil liberties were under threat. Will he cite examples to show how civil liberties have been damaged by the security services in recent years and say in what measure the Bill will fail to safeguard civil liberties better than they have been safeguarded hitherto?

Mr. Randall: I shall cite some instances in which it has been alleged that civil liberties have been impaired.

Mr. Whitney: It has been alleged.

Mr. Randall: There are other cases, too. What Cathy Massiter had to say showed unequivocally that there was an abuse of civil liberties. Such abuse has resulted in a loss of confidence in the service, and that is not good for our nation, our national security or our democracy.
The Bill is a minimalist Bill produced by the Home Secretary to deal with the pressures that are now emerging from the European Court of Human rights, especially now that the Hewitt-Harman case has been declared admissible. The Government have been forced to introduce the Bill rather hurriedly and it has not been subject to the consultation that it deserved.
The Home Secretary said that the Bill had been given "cool consideration", in conjunction with MI5. He said that one of the reasons for it was that the political kaleidoscope had changed, whatever that may mean, and added that the Government had not been forced to produce the Bill.
The Bill has been introduced in this hurried way because in the Hewitt-Harman case there is an alleged violation of civil rights by the security services in the course of their investigations. The case arises from article 13 of the European convention of human rights, which is all about right and freedoms. It says:
Everyone whose rights and freedoms — are violated"—
even by the Government—
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority".
It is that effective remedy which allegedly does not exist.
The Bill represents a wasted opportunity. The members of the Security Service accept that parliamentarians have to take civil liberties into account and I believe that many members of MI5 would not object to a more open system that allowed parliamentary or external scrutiny. I do not know who wrote the Bill, but one has the impression that it was written not by the Home Secretary but by a technocrat or a member of the Security Service who does not understand parliamentary drafting. The Bill has serious weaknesses.
The Home Secretary is letting the Security Service down in failing to restore the public's confidence and trust. In his opening speech he failed to deal adequately with the question why other countries feel that they can proceed with a more open arrangement. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) dealt with the McDonald report in detail, saying that there were lessons to be learned from that system. Other hon. Members have referred to what is happening in Australia and elsewhere.
What is it that makes Britain so different? I hope that the Minister of State will tell us why we have gone for a closed rather than the more liberal approach that is being adopted in other friendly countries with systems based on ours.

Mr. William Powell: When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. both in the Chamber and outside, that he expected to support the Bill subject to its small print, did he have any reasonable cause to believe that the Bill would contain provision for parliamentary scrutiny?

Mr. Randall: At the time that that statement was made, no information was available. My right hon. Friend has said that the Bill does not meet three criteria which he laid down clearly and which everybody will be able to read in Hansard tomorrow. That is why the Opposition feel that the Bill in its present form is not acceptable. The notion of putting the Security Service on a statutory footing naturally appeals to all hon. Members because it is at least a step forward. Unfortunately, as I have already said, the Bill does not go far enough, and the skew away from civil liberties is unacceptable.
The White Paper on the interception of communications in February 1985 defined national security. It said:
The Secretary of State may issue warrants on grounds of national security if he considers that the information to be acquired under the warrant is necessary in the interests of national security"—
and it goes on—
in support of the Government's defence and foreign policies.
What does that mean for a member of CND? That question has already been asked several times. In an earlier debate, the Home Secretary's predecessor attempted to say that CND members would not be regarded as subversives and need not fear being regarded as acting against the
interests of national security.
I hope that CND members are not regarded as subversives. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) said that we can be sure that in practice CND members are not regarded as subversive, how can we be confident about that? My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gave us four definitions of "subversive" tonight. There are no definitions in the Bill, and that


leaves us unclear about what it is all about. I hope that in Committee we shall have some definitions and that the Minister will give us some information about that tonight.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) gave the impression that he believed that none of the disclosures could lead to the idea that there was something wrong with the service. Yet the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said that Sir John Donaldson had said that we should be naive to think that bugging and burglary did not take place in the service. During the "Spycatcher" hearing, Sir John said:
In defence of the realm there must be stringent limits of what breeches of the law are considered excusable … covert invasions of privacy (what Peter Wright called burglary) may in certain circumstances be a different matter … it is absurd to contend that any breeches of the law will constitute such a "wrong doing" as to deprive MI5 of the secrecy without which it cannot operate.
So Sir John was saying that crimes were committed but that some of them were excusable.
Clause 3(2) speaks of the authorising of actions specified in warrants. Certain actions will be unlawful unless they are covered by a warrant. What are the limits on what can be specified in a warrant? For example, may the Security Service install bugging equipment? Would it be included in the warrant? The House should note that bugging and other surveillance equipment is still unregulated by the law, despite recommendations of controls by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, the Young committee on privacy and the Law Commission report on breach of confidence. The only guidelines we now have are the Home Office's guidelines to the police on the use of such equipment. If the service used such equipment, would not that violate article 8 of the European convention on human rights? If it would, should not the use of such devices be included in the Bill?
Why has not the Home Secretary made warrants subject to judicial authority rather than to administrative decision by himself, bearing in mind the fact that the Royal Commission on criminal procedure recommended that a person should have his interests represented by the Official Solicitor at a hearing before authorisation by judicial authority? That was the question raised by several hon. Members, who asked about the way in which the warrants should be issued and about the mechanisms for dealing with them.
Again, in the context of warrants, what criteria will the Home Secretary use in deeming it necessary for action to be taken to obtain information? Clause 3(2)(a) states that the Secretary of State
may … issue a warrant … if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary".
How does he decide what is necessary? Further on, the clause expands on that as necessary to obtain information which
cannot reasonably be obtained".
We are being asked again to sign a blank cheque for the Government. How can the House be confident that the proposals on warrants will work in the way that the Home Secretary believes they will?
I want to say a word or two about the Security Service tribunal. Schedule 1(1) states:
Any person may complain to the Tribunal if he is aggrieved by anything—the Service has done—to him".
How will a citizen lawfully be able to discover that he has been the subject of action by the Security Service? Does the

Minister agree that the Bill's provisions make it exceedingly difficult—nay, impossible—to obtain such information? In West Germany, if a person's telephone is tapped, when the surveillance work has been completed that person is notified that it has been. Why cannot we do the same in this country?
It has been alleged that there are files on people such as CND members. What will be their status? How will that information be used by the Security Service? Would it affect job and career prospects? I want further information on that.

Mr. Mullin: Will my hon. Friend pause to contemplate the front page of the Sunday Express of 14 February 1988? It is headed:
Labour MP and the Girl Reds".
There is a large photograph of a former Labour Minister. The photograph is 20 years old and was leaked this year to the Sunday Express, obviously by someone in the Security Service. Is there any mechanism in the Bill to ensure that the person responsible for that leak accounts to Parliament for his actions?

Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend has asked an interesting question, and I hope that the Minister will make an appropriate comment on it.
Clause 2 refers to the director-general. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the service will be placed on a statutory footing. Will the director-general become a more public figure? Will he appear on television? Will he start to educate people in order to build up their trust? Those are serious questions because, until there is contact with the public, trust and confidence will be eroded. That is a practical suggestion, and if I were a Conservative Member, I would positively encourage the director-general to have more contact with the public.
There is a political section at the end of the clause. I am not sure why it has been included, but I wonder whether it is to reassure the House and the country that the Bill contains measures to prevent the overthrow by the Security Service of a future Government of any political complexion.
The Wright book contained allegations that MI5 was playing that role. How will that be enforced to ensure that there is no political bias? How will misdemeanours be brought to light? What penalties will there be if something goes wrong inside the service? Is the Home Secretary using that clause, together with Sir Philip Woodfield, the staff counsellor, to create the illusion that there will be no political bias in the Security Service? That is nothing more than window dressing.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who is not in his seat, said that there was a divergence between clause 2 and paragraph 4 of the Maxwell Fyfe directive. The Maxwell Fyfe description is stronger, and I cannot understand why there is a divergence. I put it down to bad drafting.
The clause dealing with warrants asks Parliament to approve actions by the service that will become legal as a result of the warrants being issued. For other members of society, such actions would be regarded as illegal. Parliament is being asked to do that without any information about the extent to which illegal practices have taken place in the past. If the Minister answers no other questions, will he tell us specifically what the warrants will be used for? I do not want him to use the


words in the Bill. Similarly, when a person is vetted for employment purposes, why should he not be informed subsequently that that has happened?
The Bill is a great disappointment. It is vague, it is imprecise, and it will have little effect on the way in which the Security Service operates. The Bill fails to provide adequate safeguards against abuse and illegal activity by MI5. It contains no measures to improve the service's efficiency and effectiveness. Of special importance is the fact that the Bill includes little to enhance the civil liberties and genuine freedoms of the people of Britain.
At the same time, the Bill contains no measures to introduce external oversight, which we believe is vital to the service. the Bill is a wasted opportunity, and we shall be voting against it tonight.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on his excellent speech. In the course of my remarks, I shall answer the one question to which he sought an answer above all else, but I shall be unable to deal with his 16 or 17 other questions, which will have to wait until the Committee stage. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the question of oversight will play a major part in our debates, which are certain to be interesting.
Several notable speeches have been made this evening, particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). There were also four short, precise and pointed speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), for Corby (Mr. Powell), for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson).
I also listened with great care to the constructive criticisms made of the Bill by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason). For one extraordinary moment, I thought that I might agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), at least for the first three minutes of his speech, but that proved not to be the case.
There were misconceived speeches as well. I may tell the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and all his right hon. and hon. Friends that I shall not comment on the security service's operational details. I shall not comment either, and nor will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on cases that are currently before the European Court. I say to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who is not in his place at present, that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North was right in stating that the Bill refers to the Security Service and to the Security Service alone.
The Bill is about the trust and the confidence that is placed upon Parliament and upon Government to keep our country in peace and safety.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Patten: I hope to respond to at least one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech. I have little time in which to reply to all right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in what has been a very full debate.
The Bill places on Parliament a responsibility for establishing the scope of the Security Service's work, upon which so many lives depend—and I do not use that phrase

lightly. For the first time ever, a Government of this country are prepared to bring this issue openly to Parliament and to let Parliament decide. Upon that, almost every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken is agreed. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was able to go at least that far.
When this issue was first discussed during our debate on the Loyal Address, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) heard my right hon. Friend's description of the Bill and told the House that he welcomed it. I quote him exactly:
This is a small concession … We welcome it and hope—hope subject to examination of the Bill—to support what the Home Secretary proposes."—[Official Report, 23 November 1988; Vol. 142. c.137.]
The right hon. Gentleman's judgement was right then, but deeply flawed later. He made his statement of support both in the House and, on television to the nation later that night on "Newsnight", after my right hon. Friend's Bill was published.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is a very good writer, and a very good writer generally has to be a very good and rapid reader. My right hon. Friend's Bill is very short and succinct, and I simply do not believe that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not fully understand what it contained before he went on television that night. Who knows what went on around the shadow Cabinet table after Labour's fiasco over the vote on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill vote?

Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is a secret!

Mr. Patten: It is indeed a secret.
This is a very sad half-turn by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The Bill is a liberating measure: first, it puts the Security Service on a firm statutory basis under the clear authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. William Powell: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether at any stage since 1979 any spokesman for Her Majesty's Government has given the House any cause to believe that the Government would favour a parliamentary scrutiny committee? Was that information available at the time when the right hon. Gentleman spoke?

Mr. Patten: On no occasion has such an impression been given. We have made the information freely available, and it was of course available to the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke, both in the House and on television.
Secondly, the Bill is a liberating measure in that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will personally authorise certain actions only when he is satisfied in the light of statutory safeguards. Thirdly, it provides for the independent review by a commissioner—not a member of the Government, but a senior member of the judiciary—of the exercise of those powers. Fourthly, it allows any person or organisation to complain and to seek remedies in respect of any alleged actions by the service that have affected them.
The Bill sits alongside my right hon. Friend's proposals for restricting the scope of official secrets legislation. We shall debate those proposals next week. The true effect of the two measures together is to provide reassurance and an avenue for complaints about matters relating to the


authority and control of the Security Service, while continuing to ensure that the secrets on which all our lives depend can be fully protected.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—and, I think, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West—raised the important issue of economic well-being and exactly what that meant. The term is embodied in article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The function defined in clause 1(3) represents no change in the work that the service has been undertaking for many years. It follows exactly the careful and narrow drafting already approved by Parliament in the Interception of Communications Act 1985, and it addresses the safeguarding of the country against hostile foreign actions and adverse developments which could affect our economic well-being. Of course, the Security Service is not solely responsible for those matters. Others are concerned—the Army, the special branch and the police. It is nevertheless essential that the service should be able to contribute where it can do so.
I must say that I welcomed the defence by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) of the excellence of the Home Office draftsmen. The Bill is indeed excellently drafted; it is a first-rate Bill, and I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that. She, of course, spent some time as an administrative trainee in the Home Office, and I understand that she was marked down at an early stage for speedy promotion. I can reveal what could well be an official secret and get me into trouble. A member of the personnel department in the Home Office came to me recently and said that the department wanted to launch a competition for that most important of posts, my replacement principal private secretary. He said that had the hon. Lady still been in the Civil Service she might well have been a leading competitor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to the definition of national security, a matter that concerns many hon. Members. The concept of national security is recognised in the European convention on human rights. It is also recognised in legislation that was introduced by the last Labour Administration—in the industrial relations legislation, equal opportunities legislation and other measures. The definition of national security is entirely consistent with the interpretation that is referred to in the White Paper. The Bill covers more than the Security Service. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his opening speech that the Security Service is not primarily concerned with matters that relate to defence and foreign policy. However, the Security Service cannot be inert if it is to contribute to thwarting threats to national security.
National security is generally understood to refer to matters that relate to the survival or the well-being of the nation. That must cover matters relating to defence and foreign policy. It would be inexcusable if the Security Service were to be disbarred, in a statutory sense, from helping to thwart an armed attack on this country, or if it failed to act if it came across a possible act of sabotage, or if it failed to act if it could contribute to identifying or frustrating the hostile intentions of a foreign Government.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The anxiety is that the words are phrased in such a way as to countenance Government

policy in relation to foreign affairs and that the definition is so broad that ordinary citizens, going about the legitimate task of challenging Government policy, could be designated under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Patten: I can only repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he responded to an earlier intervention by my hon. Friend: such an interpretation is entirely wrong. Of course, there will be an opportunity to return to these points in detail in Committee.
There can be no question of the Security Service acting in circumstances where the security of the nation as a whole is not under threat, nor could there be any circumstances in which the Security Service could act in a way that tended to further the interests of any political party. That is clearly and specifically set out in clause 2.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I have so many points to refer to that I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way.
I promised to reply to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about the powers of police officers and the special branch. Police officers act under the authority of their own legislation. The special branch is part of the police force, which is under the authority of the chief constable. Any complaints about the special branch go to the Police Complaints Authority.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to the extremely important issue of accountability. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will not display what he is holding in his hand.

Mr. Mullin: I was just reading it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Patten: In a Bill such as this, whose objectives must be clarity and certainty when dealing with the security of the nation, there is no place for proposals, however well intentioned, that could lead to confusion. In practice, the effective oversight of the Security Service is inseparable from overall responsibility for the Security Service. I urge the House not to accept, under the guise of what may seem to be a reasonable person's response, something that in practice turns out to be a fudge.
We cannot safely divide up the responsibility for the Security Service. That is recognised by other English-speaking parliamentary systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) referred to New Zealand. Socialist New Zealand has chosen to go down a route that is similar to ours in many ways. New Zealand has a commissioner. It has also decided that there should not be parliamentary scrutiny.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook's points about supervision displayed a very muddled—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we do not display placards in the Chamber.

Mr. Mullin: It is not a placard. It is the front page of the Sunday Express. I was merely trying to remind the Minister of my intervention earlier in the hope that he would reply to it.

Mr. Lawrence: I think that the hon. Gentleman was reading a blank page.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South is well known in the House for his frivolity and his lack of serious attention to these matters.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wanted general supervision. He completely failed to understand the workings of the tribunal and barely mentioned the important role of the commissioner. He did not realise that the generalised supervision for which he was apparently calling at the beginning of his speech could never deal with the individual misdemeanours of those in the service. The only people who would ever have such information available to them would be the management of the service, the director-general, the Home Secretary and of course the commissioner, who is an independent figure, a judge from the high judiciary at the right or left shoulder of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook began to talk about general supervision, I thought that he was suggesting a body such as that which had been described to the House earlier by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is not his place—a general checking body. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook then put before the House a model of that general supervision. He suggested that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be going off to the Cabinet at 9.45 am on a Thursday and someone would come up to him with a warrant. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook went on to say that what he expected to be interposed between my right hon. Friend and his decision-making process was some sort of parliamentary body. [Interruption.] It will be in Hansard for all to see.
If only the right hon. Gentleman could have seen the looks of amazement and then embarrassment on the faces of his colleagues. He had suggested a concept which would put parliamentary scrutiny between the bringing of a warrant and the decision by the Home Secretary of the day. No democracy in the western world operates parliamentary scrutiny over the operational decisions of the service which guards it. That was the precise remedy that the right hon. Gentleman put before the House. I dare say that he did not mean it.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North well illustrated the problem of parliamentary oversight. It was noted very carefully that he wanted to require my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to come to the House and answer allegations about the reasons for the service allegedly targeting particular individuals or organisations. What an absolute gift to any organisation which threatens our security to ask the Home Secretary through Parliament so that the Home Secretary will have to tell Parliament the exact facts. That would be a gift to anyone.
I turn to the central question about warrants that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West so wanted me to answer. In his notable speech my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North, from his considerable experience of the difficulties of the Select Committee in trying to examine the workings of special branch, encapsulated the problems that would face any parliamentary oversight should the House decide that there should be one.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must forgive me. I was replying to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I hope that he has the decency to recognise that.
For the first time ever, Parliament will have the assurance that there is a proper statutory procedure for the examination of warrants and, for the first time ever, the commissioner, the independent judge, will make a report on such matters, subject to security exclusions, to which his report drew specific attention. That report will be published and laid before Parliament. These are important provisions, providing significant new safeguards. The House would be wise to welcome them.
The warrant procedure is public. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked that it should he made public, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. That provision is in clause 3. The system will provide for considerable oversight of all the warrant activities involved in the Bill.
Public confidence will be greatly improved and deepened by the Bill. It will be impossible to deal in depth with every point made by hon. Members. I hope that in the answers which I have given—I have tried to be as even-handed as I could be across the Floor of the House—I have demonstrated that I have listened with care. We shall continue to do so and to reflect on hon. Members' points during the Bill's progress. We believe that the Bill is a good answer to difficult questions about the role of the Security Service in our system. Of course they are difficult questions to answer. We have answered them by a short, comprehensible and clear Bill which is easily understandable. It apportions directly the fundamental responsibilities on matters of security and recognises this country's traditions.
The Bill and the spirit with which we have brought if forward compare ill with the carefully measured attack by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on the record of the Security Service, which has helped this country so much. That statement will be in Hansard tomorrow. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook sits giggling. In the Europeanwide fight against terrorism—for example, in the Trevi group—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary finds that our European partners recognise and appreciate the skill and professionalism of the Security Service. That is why they can operate with it. The right hon. Gentleman should not have attacked the Security Service. He will live to regret those words—[Horn. MEMBERS: "That is a threat."] The right hon. Gentleman should have listened carefully to the speech—

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Minister must think carefully about the worth which he used. They can be interpreted as a threat. He should be prepared to say that he did not mean that formulation of words in the sense in which he used it.

Mr. Patten: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should have listened to the moving speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, one of the last Members who can speak without a hint of humbug about spilling blood to defend freedom. There was a time when the Labour party could, in the interests of national security, be counted upon to put the nation's interests beyond the internal problems of its party


managers, following the fiasco across that party after the muddle last week over the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
The Labour party condemns terrorism, but it does little to help. We have not a single constructive alternative to the policies which we have laid before the House in the last couple of weeks to deal with terrorism—powers to detain suspected terrorists for questioning, no; exclusion orders, no; restrictions on terrorists' access to the media, no; and now, putting the Security Service on a statutory footing, no. Whatever the reason, the Labour party shows by those attitudes that it has quit its role as the reasonable alternative party of government.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 105.

Division No. 21]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Favell, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Dame peggy


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Allason, Rupert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amess, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Amos, Alan
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Ashby, David
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Gardiner, George


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beggs, Roy
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Benyon, W.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Grist, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grylls, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Ll Gr')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carttiss, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Cartwright, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hill, James


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Holt, Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Devlin, Tim
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dover, Den
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dunn, Bob
Hunter, Andrew


Durant, Tony
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Eggar, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Jack, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Janman, Tim


Fallon, Michael
Jessel, Toby





Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knowles, Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lawrence, Ivan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neubert, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waddington, Rt hon David


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Warren, Kenneth


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Raffan, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Redwood, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Sackville, Hon Tom
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Doran, Frank


Alton, David
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fearn, Ronald


Barron, Kevin
Fields, Terry (L'pool B'G'n)


Beckett, Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes, George


Boyes, Roland
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Graham, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Holland, Stuart



Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jones Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Crowther, Stan
Kennedy, Charles


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cummings, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Darling, Alistair
Leighton, Ron






Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sillars, Jim


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Vaz, Keith


Marek, Dr John
Wall, Pat


Meale, Alan
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Nellist, Dave
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter L.
Worthington, Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Allen McKay.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Maclean.]

Committee tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day — Security Service Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Security Service Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act.[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: The money resolution should not go by without my making a few comments, as there are some issues to raise. The money resolution is broadly based. [Interruption.] In spite of Tory Members shouting for me to sit down, we should carry on with our investigation. Threats should not be uttered in Parliament. Free speech should be allowed.
Clause 6 of the Bill deals with money. According to the explanation at the top of the Bill, the amount involved will be about £360,000. I shall ask the Minister a few questions, because the money resolution provides for any Act arising out of the Bill to be financed by Parliament. Naturally, one must look at all the consequences flowing from the legislation. It behoves us to undertake such scrutiny.
First of all, there is the question of a commissioner, because he will undertake the task of reviewing the warrants. He will peer over the Minister's shoulder metaphorically, and possibly in some cases literally, to see whether the Minister is exercising the powers under this legislation correctly. Therefore, when he reviews the warrants that are being issued for burglaring and bugging—as Peter Wright explained in his much-read book—the commissioner will be undertaking an important task.
Because we are authorising payment to the commissioner under clause 4(2), it is worth while studying the amount of money that the commissioner will receive. The Minister should tell us, because there is a line between a very good salary and what people in the street might think of as bribery to keep his mouth shut. I say to the Minister that if he raises his eyebrows and says, "Tut. tut, what a thing to suggest"—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I did not say that.

Mr. Cryer: I could see something flashing across the hon. Gentleman's face, and I thought that that might be going through his mind.
People on ordinary wages, supplementary benefit or other low incomes, when they hear about some of these salaries—£50,000, or £60,000 or whatever the range is, and it has not been mentioned so far—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Egg producers are going bust.

Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend has said, egg producers are going bust.

Mr. Skinner: In Buxton, Derbyshire.

Mr. Cryer: I wonder whether £360,000 is enough, because the Government will spend £500,000 remedying the damage done by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) in her attack on the poultry industry.


However, I shall come back to the salary of the commissioner. What range will it be in, because we do not necessarily want someone who will be a pillar of the establishment? Indeed, I believe that we would want someone who is not. It does not reassure me when I read in clause 4(1):
The Prime Minister shall appoint a Commissioner for the purposes of this Act a person who holds or has held high judicial office within the meaning of the Appelate Jurisdiction Act 1876.
It does not reassure me because those people come from a privileged educational position. The majority of judges were barristers—although there are some qualifications to that—and the education of barristers has been designed by the establishment to keep the sons and daughters of the working class out. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) laughs, but how does he suppose that the bricklayer's son or daughter can afford to take their dinners for a number of years before taking their Bar final examination? How can he or she afford the expensive monopolist charges for wig and gown? The realities of ordinary working-class life is that this money must be found. By and large, the people who get onto the judicial bench are not the sons and daughters of the working class. I ask the Minister to tell us first of all the salary range of the commissioner.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is right that the people who get the jobs with the kinky clothes come from the belly of the establishment, just like those who finish up spying. Nearly every spy who has been caught in the past 30 to 40 years has come straight out of the belly of the establishment. That is important in relation to this Bill and the money involved in it. I must say that what is even worse is that 500 people have just been thrown out of work because of that chicken farm at Buxton going bust.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. What has this to do with the money resolution?

Mr. Skinner: Five hundred jobs have been lost and not one of those people who have lost his job will get the job to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has referred.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has a point, and it arises from the money resolution. By and large, people in the poultry industry are poorly paid and have not been well organised. They would wish to be satisfied that the commissioner will exercise proper scrutiny. When they see the sort of salary that I believe the Minister has in mind, they will wonder whether this is not just another job for a public schoolboy.
Another area of expenditure covered by the money resolution is the tribunal which, under clause 5(1), will be established
for the purpose of investigating complaints about the Service in the manner specified in Schedule 1 to this Act.
The expenses and salaries of the tribunal's members will be paid by the Home Secretary, with the consent of the Treasury, as he determines. What sort of salaries and expenses will they receive? The job is so important that we should not gauge it by the amount of money being paid. We must always ask whether the salary and expenses are

so large that they would represent to the ordinary man and woman in the street not so much a salary as a way of keeping people's mouths shut.
The Minister said that the Bill is designed to create confidence in the operation of the security services. If the salaries are as astronomic as they usually are for such jobs, many people will believe that the tribunal is not scrutinising the Security Service properly.
It would be much more radical and interesting if the Government included on the tribunal people who are not barristers, advocates or solicitors of 10 years' standing. They should have an ordinary citizen or two on the tribunal instead of trawling the legal profession, as they always do to fill such positions.
When dealing with investigations, the tribunal may have to undertake extensive investigations. Under clause 1(3),
it shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
Such acts or intentions may arise from the French water companies wishing to buy the British water industry, which the Tories are putting on the market. If MI5 decided that the French water companies represented a threat as defined in clause 1(3) it could investigate the activities of any British citizen who was employed by a French company. If that citizen complained to the tribunal, it would have to investigate not only activities here but the link with the French water companies.
The total cost of establishing and staffing the tribunal and assisting the commissioner is envisaged to be about £360,000 a year, with an additional public service manpower requirement of about 12 officers. The cost and manpower requirements, obviously, will depend on the volume and nature of the tribunal's work. Let me give the Minister a concrete example.
The old firm is at it again. MI5 is leaking secrets to the Sunday Express. It did it when Chapman Pincher was the paper's defence correspondent and, with the authority of the Prime Minister, MI5 poured out secrets, so that Chapman Pincher—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see what that has to do with the money resolution.

Mr. Cryer: I am merely pointing out, by way of example, that the Sunday Express appears to have a monopoly—perhaps it has been granted a royal warrant by MI5—to leak secrets, as it did for Chapman Pincher's book "Their Trade is Treachery". My comments relate to the money resolution. The tribunal will investigate complaints and the money resolution will provide the finance for that.
I have here a photocopy of the Sunday Express of 14 February 1988. It contains a picture of John Diamond and somebody else. The picture could provide a perfectly legitimate basis for a complaint that MI5 had taken this picture and had leaked it to the Sunday Express for its use. The picture is of a citizen who has nothing to do with the claims of MI5. That is precisely what the Bill concerns. The citizen sees the picture—

Mr. Roger King: The money resolution.

Mr. Cryer: I am speaking about the money resolution.


The photograph was published in the Sunday Express, SO that citizen would have the right to go to the tribunal. MI5 is up to that sort of dirty trick. It is precisely because of its dirty tricks that the Minister is promoting the Bill—and the Bill will not function without the money. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) does not understand such matters, although if he is here for another 25 years—which is unlikely—he might eventually grasp a few basic simplicities. My example illustrates the sort of complaint that the tribunal will investigate.
Does the Minister agree that I have sketched such a complaint? It will be no good for the Minister to say that the Government have little idea because the matter is dealt with in the Bill. The Minister complained earlier that the Opposition have not been putting forward positive or constructive suggestions. I have given a positive example of the way in which such a complaint might arise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated his point well with one example. I hope that he will not give too many examples.

Mr. Cryer: I know that my comments have been rather drawn out, but may I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been subjected to continuous harassment from the hon. Members for Northfield and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and I know that you would want to draw their attention to the rules of order—and the Minister's attention as well. He has been making snide little comments all the time. I do not mind, but I am interested in the rules of good conduct in the House and I do not want to see the rules broken while you are in the Chair. I try to help you to bring a bit of order on these occasions. Unfortunately, in trying to help you, it sometimes reflects on me in carrying out my duty as a Member of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is fair enough for the hon. Gentleman to illustrate and sharpen his point by one example, but it is not necessary for him to give too many examples to make his point.

Mr. Cryer: I entirely agree. I am making the point that such an investigation would involve the Sunday Express and the reporter. The photograph was taken, I believe, in Vienna in Austria, so it might involve investigations in other countries where the complaint was based. Those investigations would be, potentially, expensive. So I hope that the Minister will assure us that the £360,000 will be sufficient. Indeed, will it be sufficient to prevent him having to return to Parliament, as did the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, with two further money resolutions.
We need a response from the Minister which will enable us to assess the importance of the points mentioned in the explanatory and financial memorandum, remembering that such comments will aid the whole House when the Bill is considered in Committee. We have an opportunity on this resolution to have a mini-debate about money. The Minister now has sufficient time in which to give a reasoned response to the points that I have raised.
I appreciate that, because the Bill represents a new venture for the Government, we cannot have concrete assurances about expenditure. For example, the complaints about which we are talking have not before had a legitimate channel through which to be raised. Having

asked about the fees to be paid to the commissioner and members of the tribunal, I trust that the Minister will make at least an attempt to answer those questions.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am sorry that, even in debating the money resolution, the only hon. Gentleman to speak from the Labour Benches felt it necessary to attack the Security Service, as, alas, did many of his hon. Friends when we debated the Bill. Although sad, it shows their real attitude, including their attitude to the service.
I shall certainly answer the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman, who is the money resolution specialist in the House this century, and probably the next century as well, judging from the way in which he talks. The money resolution makes provision for expenditure which would be incurred under the Bill. The undertakings embodied in clauses 1 and 2 will not lead to any increase in public service manpower. The Bill has the effect of providing statutory authority for the Security Service and its expenditure.
The Bill will involve additional expenditure in only three areas, two of which were mentioned by the hon. Member whose constituency I have temporarily forgotten, since he rolls from one to another. I refer, of course, to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). That is his present constituency; he moves around a great deal.
Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to issue warrants authorising the taking of specified actions in respect of property, only where he is satisfied that this is necessary to obtain essential information which cannot be obtained by other means. The administration of procedures for applying, issuing, cancelling and renewing these warrants is a consequence of the legislation, and the additional costs have been included in the financial memorandum as part of the estimate of the total costs of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman who at present represents Bradford, South asked some leading questions about the commissioner. Clause 4 requires the Prime Minister to appoint a commissioner. The clause provides that the Secretary of State shall pay to him out of voted money such allowances as the Treasury determines.
The Commissioner has to be a serving or a former judge. If a serving judge is appointed—I imagine that under most circumstances that that would be most likely the—commissioner will not receive any additional salary. There will be no additional public expenditure because that judge will already be being paid. The costs of the post would then be confined to the incidental expenses and adequate support. The estimated cost is within the figure quoted in the financial memorandum and judges' salaries are a matter of public knowledge, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Thirdly, clause 5 and schedule 2 provide for the establishment of a tribunal and for the cost of that also to be met out of voted money. Those costs can be the remuneration and allowances of the tribunal members who will be drawn from the classes that the hon. Gentleman so contemptuously described, or other expenses which include the costs of office accommodation and support services.
The hon. Gentleman fairly said that we could not calculate those costs precisely. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, a great deal will depend on the number of


complaints received, which cannot be estimated at this stage with any accuracy. But our estimates have been made on the basis of providing the tribunal with three officers and allowing for accommodation and for paying the members on a daily rate. Those estimated costs are also incorporated in the costs quoted in the financial memorandum.

Mr. Skinner: I want to ask the Minister about the application of the money resolution in respect of investigations into, for example, the case of Roberto Fiore, the Italian who has been here for seven years—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see what that has to do with the money resolution.

Mr. Skinner: I shall tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That Italian is wanted by the Italian Government as a major suspect in the railway bombing which killed 85 people in Italy. Although Italy has been trying to extradite that man, who could be regarded as a spy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with the motion before the House.

Mr. Patten: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say, simply for the avoidance of doubt, that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is characteristically talking complete nonsense. The case—

Mr. Skinner: It is in The Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Patten: Just because it is in The Daily Telegraph does not mean that it is true.

Mr. Skinner: It is the Minister's paper.

Mr. Patten: The issue to which the hon. Gentleman is referring—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now getting into a matter that I fear has nothing to do with the motion before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Security Service Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act.

Orders of the Day — Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

ROYALTY EXEMPTION FOR PETROLEUM FROM CERTAIN SOUTHERN BASIN AND LANDWARD AREAS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Frank Doran: We had a fairly lengthy debate on Second Reading on the general aspects of North sea oil and gas recovery, but one or two specific points remain open for question.
First, will the Minister give us some idea of what possibilities he sees for the extension of the philosophy behind the Bill? We have seen the removal of the royalty payments in the northern sector of the North Sea in 1983 and now we see them being removed from the southern basin. But some fields are coming to the end of their useful life and there will be a growing number of such fields in the next few years. What proposals do the Government have for those older fields? We hope that his proposals will lead to improved investment in technology which would encourage an increase in the recovery rate from those fields.
My next point was raised on Second Reading and it concerns the British Gas monopoly. Ministers referred us to the proposal within the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that 10 per cent. of the recovered gas should be sold to parties other than British Gas. However, we did not get a statement about the Government's position. Opposition Members are concerned that British Gas controls the rate of development because it is the monopoly purchaser. What proposals does the Minister have to open up the sale of gas and to encourage the development of the marginal fields that we discussed on Second Reading?
Will the Minister comment on the impact of the electricity privatisation?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not see how that can possibly arise under clause 1.

Mr. Doran: I am talking about the monopoly purchasing power of British Gas. It is a matter for debate under the clause. I was about to ask the Minister whether he thinks that the privatisation of electricity and the opening up of what the Government claim to be new electricity suppliers will bring about any improvement. On Second Reading the Minister gave the example of the purchase by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board of gas from the Miller field for burning in the Peterhead power station.

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I am not following the clause. It is about royalty exemption for petroleum from certain southern basin and landward areas. It has nothing to do with electricity generation and gas supplies.

Mr. Doran: I thought that I had made it clear that I was talking about the sale of gas. I was asking the Minister whether he thinks that there will be any improvement after privatisation and whether there will be encouragement for exploration in the southern basin.
In Britain, gas and oil are publicly owned. The establishment and payment of royalties was an expression of that public ownership. Opposition Members regret the fact that the Government have taken what appears to be a blunderbuss approach and simply removed the royalties completely rather than taking a field-by-field approach. They have breached the principle of public ownership which royalties represent.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) that the mineral rights remain vested in the Crown, and that will remain the case. The philosophy about the longevity of the fields is not quite within the confines of clause 1. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have placed much emphasis on further research and development. Only yesterday in Edinburgh I launched a new institute which will have, among other things, to consider that aspect.
I would expect the privatisation of electricity to help the southern basin in terms of further gas exploration and discoveries. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and as we discussed on Second Reading, the point of the Bill is to encourage further exploration and development. I am sure that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends think that that is the right way to proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

EXTENSION OF ROYALTY EXEMPTION FOR PETROLEUM FROM CERTAIN NEW OFFSHORE FIELDS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Doran: I want to deal with the link between the licence conditions specified in clause 2 and health and safety. There is a power for the Minister to insist on the execution of works under the regulations referred to in the Bill and to revoke the licences of operators where there are breaches of safety. Safety was a major feature of our earlier discussions on the Bill. Will the Minister comment on his powers and tell us whether they have ever been used?

Mr. Peter Morrision: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the licences are approved subject to certain conditions. He rightly highlights the safety conditions in terms of exploration and production. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I saw fit to look carefully

at or withdraw a licence because the conditions were not being met, we would have no hesitation in so doing. I believe I am right in saying that so far no licence has been withdrawn, which is a good reflection on the industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

POWER TO AMEND DESIGNATION ORDER RELATING TO CONTINENTAL SHELF BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Doran: This clause establishes the treaty between our Government and that of the Irish Republic. It opens up the possibility of exploration of the north-west coast of Scotland and the south-west coasts of England and Wales. It would be useful to know what the Government's proposals in respect of licensing in this area are, and what prospects there are for development and industrial improvement in these parts of the country.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The hon. Gentleman flatters me by suggesting that I can look into a crystal ball and see what the possibilities are. I wish I knew. The reason for this agreement, and for the clause that ensures that it will be put into practice, is that the areas concerned can be put up for licence. At some stage in the future it is possible that, given the development of technology in the much deeper waters, that this area by and large covers, it will be explored and that more production will ensue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

AGRICULTURE

That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1983), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November 1988 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2055), dated 24th November 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Transport (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful for this opportunity to put to my hon. Friend the Minister a number of points about transport in Scotland.
This debate comes at the end of a week in which this subject has been at the forefront of debate in the House. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Scotland made an excellent statement on public expenditure. Yesterday, the House gave a Second Reading to the Transport (Scotland) Bill, after a long debate that was fully answered by my hon. Friend the Minister. After these events, there is a great deal of interest in transport in Scotland. I want to ask my hon. Friend some detailed questions about Scotland in general and about issues of great importance to my constituents in Eastwood.
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's substantial extra provision for roads and transport—an increase of about £40 million on the previously announced plans for 1989–90. That enables the implementation of the manifesto commitment to upgrade the A74 to motorway status to begin.
After the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend, I asked him about the Ayr road route—the dual carriageway extension from the M77 at Dumbreck, bypassing the built-up areas of the south side of Glasgow and Giffnock, Newton Mearns and Barrhead, to the present A77 at the Malletsheugh. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will welcome this chance to expand on what our right hon. and learned Friend said in answer to my question.
The Ayr road route is crucial to the economic health and environmental health of the areas I mentioned, and to Ayrshire. It would help, if not resolve, the critical traffic situation in Eaglesham village, to which subject I will return later. It will mean that, for the first time, a good road link will exist between Prestwick airport and the central Scotland motorway system. That is why the then Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended that it be given "a high priority". The Government's response was positive and clear. I quote the Government response dated 2 March 1983, paragraph 19:
As regards the A77, preparatory activity is already in hand with a view to starting work on the trunk road section"—
that is, the section outside the Glasgow city boundary for which the Government are responsible—
in 1986–87. Strathclyde regional council have proposals in the TPP to being work on the proposed section within the city boundary in 1985–86, but with the main work starting in 1986–87. This is the earliest timetable currently considered feasible for the construction of the trunk road section, taking account of the preliminary survey and design work and the statutory procedures that have still to be undertaken. The Government will, however, take all necessary steps to adhere to this timetable.
That was very clear and unequivocal:
The Government will, however, take all necessary steps to adhere to this timetable.
That leaves no room for doubt, but the timetable has slipped considerably.
I appreciate that perhaps this is because of delay resulting from objections and the complexity of statutory procedures. Nevertheless, I welcome Strathclyde regional

council's strong support for the road, and disagree with the rather petty objections made by Glasgow district council. However, as I said on Tuesday, answers to parliamentary questions put by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) have revealed that the northern Ayrshire and Renfrewshire sections of the A77 are much more dangerous than the A74, which is being upgraded to motorway status—welcome though that decision is.
My hon. Friend's predecessor told me in an answer to a parliamentary question on 18 February 1987 that the Ayr road route would take 6 million vehicles a year in 1991. On 8 April 1987, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to me:
The start of the Ayr road route is held back by procedural and not financial constraints.
I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will confirm that that is so, and indicate the up-to-date position in respect of the public inquiry and his right hon. and learned Friend's consideration of it. On the assumption that the scheme is approved, can he give the timetable for both the start and the completion of the construction period?
Earlier, I mentioned the village of Eaglesham in my constituency. It is a village that my hon. Friend knows well, as it is the one in which Rudolf Hess landed—as described in my hon. Friend's first-class book. It is a charming conservation village with much new housing. It is represented on Eastwood district council by Councillor Basil Baird, on whose family farm Hess landed.
The village has seen a sharp increase in traffic, and of goods vehicle traffic in particular. That has created serious problems. I quote from one of the many letters I have received from constituents:
Over the past few years there has been a dramatic increase in the amount and nature of the traffic using the road. I have recently been involved in a traffic count over a twelve hour period, and I am appalled by the result: 988 heavy goods vehicles, 1,163 lorries, and 8,578 cars. This means one heavy goods vehicle trundles, or more accurately, hurtles, past my front door every 45 seconds".
It is a narrow road.
There has also been a marked increase in speed and a dramatic rise in the number of accidents. I must also point out the damage to the environment, with the steep gradient and constant gear changes there is an unacceptable level of lead in the atmosphere.
That is typical of the huge volume of complaints.
I welcome the interim measures that have been taken by Strathclyde regional council—the roundabout at one end and the lights halfway down Montgomery street in the middle of the village. Councillors and Eaglesham community council have made unremitting efforts, and it was owing to pressure from the previous regional councillor Robbie Robertson that the Eaglesham bypass was put into Strathclyde region's plans. It has, however, been delayed. In his letter of 5 December, my hon. Friend confirmed to me that it was now scheduled for the spring of 1993. Given the extra resources for road investment announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier this week, I should like to know whether there is any possibility of a general speeding up of the Strathclyde programme, which would help Eaglesham.
I appreciate that decisions on such matters will reflect the priorities of Strathclyde regional council, but it is not quite as simple as that. Tonight's Adjournment debate was originally to have been about the causeway to Vatersay, but the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) withdrew his application, for the good reason that my


right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced a special capital allocation to enable the causeway to go ahead. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman: I think that this is the first recorded example of the threat of an Adjournment debate achieving its objective.
I do not necessarily threaten my hon. Friend the Minister with constant Adjournment debates on this issue, but this is an important constituency matter and I know that he or his officials will be having technical discussions with Strathclyde regional council. Obviously, the Scottish Development Department is involved in such discussions when determining Strathclyde's total allocation, and I hope that my hon. Friend will view the problem sympathetically.
On a more general note, my hon. Friend knows of my interest in bus privatisation and the need for proper competition between Strathclyde Buses and the present Clydeside group, which will be linked after privatisation, and also my interest in McGills of Barrhead, an excellent and long-established independent bus operator. These are vital matters for my constituents. We shall, however, have plenty of time to discuss buses in the future. I should like tonight to ask my hon. Friend a number of questions about CalMac.
I congratulate the Government on their proposals, which represent a proper balance and reflect the different circumstances in different areas of the islands. Yesterday, my hon. Friend answered very fully the general debate on Second Reading of the Scottish Transport Bill. There was then an unscheduled—for many of us—addendum, then a closure motion and then a debate on the money resolution, when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) took the whole of the allotted 45 minutes. It was the first time that I had seen a Labour Front Bencher filibuster to keep Opposition Back Benchers out. Be that as it may, my hon. Friend did not have a chance to put on record his response to the money resolution, and it is that on which I wish to speak tonight. I wish particularly to refer to the investment record of CalMac since 1979.
It is important that the House should hear my hon. Friend's account of the position, and I hope that he will be able to tell us about CalMac's general record and prospects. Perhaps he will take the opportunity, if the information is available to him, to answer some specific questions, which would be of value to everyone with an interest in the future of the services.
Let me ask my hon. Friend four such questions. First, how much grant have the Government provided for ships and piers since they came into office? Secondly, and related to that, how much has CalMac invested since then? Thirdly, how many new ships will be built under this programme? Fourthly, all hon. Members with an interest in the subject recognise the importance of the roll-on roll-off facilities for the islands. Can my hon. Friend say whether those facilities have been extended?
I have two general questions for my hon. Friend. First, what has been the general reaction to the Government's proposals for the future of Caledonian MacBrayne since my right hon. and learned Friend's statement to the House? Secondly, now that the Transport (Scotland) Bill has been given a Second Reading, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to make a statement about the Government's policy on ferry services?
I could refer to many other aspects of transport policy: to the rail network and air transport. My hon. Friend

knows my views about continental air flights from Glasgow airport. However, I want my hon. Friend to have time fully to reply to the questions I have asked. In conclusion, therefore, I congratulate him on the Second Reading of the Transport (Scotland) Bill and on his contribution to a public expenditure statement earlier this week, which is good news for transport in Scotland.

11 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) serves both his constituents and the House well by referring to such important and relevant matters. It is typical of my hon. Friend's extremely dedicated, hard-working and vigorous approach as the Member of Parliament for East Renfrewshire. It is a particular pleasure for me to reply to this debate. Many years ago, my father was the Member of Parliament for my hon. Friend's constituents.
My hon. Friend referred to the proposed Ayr road route and the possible timetable for its completion. The proposed Ayr road route is a joint Scottish Development Department-Strathclyde regional council project to link the M77 spur at Dumbreck to the existing A77 at Malletsheugh. The effect of this will be to provide a dual carriageway between the M8 on the south of the Kingston bridge and Malletsheugh, which lies to the south of Newton Mearns. The section between Dumbreck and the former Glasgow city boundary, approximately 7 kin, will be a local road for which Strathclyde regional council will be responsible and the section between the city boundary and Malletsheugh, approximately 4 km, will be a trunk road for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be responsible. The trunk section is effectively a bypass of Newton Mearns. The total cost of the joint project will be at least £55 million, of which the trunk section will be at least £15 million.
A large number of objections were made to the Strathclyde region section of the road, and some 32 objections to the trunk section remained outstanding at the beginning of this year. Accordingly, it was decided to hold a public local inquiry. The inquiry, which was held in Glasgow, began in March 1988 and ended some 10 weeks later in May.
The reporter to the inquiry completed part I of his report, his findings of fact, only recently and it was distributed to the parties to the inquiry on 9 December There now follows a period for adjustment of the findings of fact. Then the next step is for the reporter to compile part II of his report—his conclusions and recommendations—for submission to the Secretary of State. Normally, part II is produced much more quickly than part I, and I would expect my right hon. and learned Friend to issue his decision on whether the new road should go ahead in the first half of 1989.
My hon. Friend also referred to the need to bypass Eaglesham. Strathclyde regional council's latest transport policies and programme submission includes a scheme to bypass Eaglesham. The council acknowledges that the road through the village is carrying increasing volumes of traffic between Ayrshire and East Kilbride, including a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles. The environmental problems resulting from the increased use of the


road are also recognised. The promotion of the bypass scheme is intended to remove all the heavy through traffic from the village and to reduce accidents.
The council's financial plans, submitted to the Department in November 1988, show that the scheme is scheduled for a March 1993 start, as are two similar by-pass schemes for Strathaven and Darvel. But the timing of specific projects is a matter for Strathclyde regional council. The council, within its overall allocation for capital expenditure on roads and transport, is free to determine which projects it will undertake and their relative priority in the light of local circumstances.
The Government also make substantial provision for local roads and transport. Strathclyde regional council, as the largest authority, is a major benefactor of the capital allocations given to regional and islands authorities. The council's allocation is £57 million in the current year—a substantial sum.
As for trunk roads, the Government already have a substantial programme from which Strathclyde benefits. The forward trunk road programme for Scotland contains a good number of proposed schemes in Strathclyde. There are 26 major schemes with a total estimated value of at least £270 million. In addition, major works on upgrading the A74 to motorway should be starting in due course. In the Renfrew district area there are four major trunk schemes—the A77 Ayr road route, the A77 Fenwick-to-B764-junction scheme, the scheme from there to Malletsheugh and the M8 St. James interchange. The first three of the schemes mentioned will complete a dual carriageway from Glasgow to Ayr. The trunk element of the Ayr road route along with the other three Renfrew district area schemes represent an estimated Government expenditure of at least £50 million.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about investment in Caledonian MacBrayne, and I shall describe the background briefly. CalMac operates passenger, vehicle and freight shipping services to the islands off the west coast of Scotland and in the Clyde estuary. There are 26 scheduled services in addition to which the company provides seasonal cruising, livestock runs and charter/ contract services. The company-owned fleet consists of 28 vessels—12 major vehicle ferries, 14 small vehicle ferries and two passenger-only vessels. The newest major vessel, the MV Isle of Mull, was launched at Port Glasgow on 7 December 1987 and came into service on the Oban-Mull route this year. A further major ferry is on order from Appledore-Ferguson Ltd. Shipbuilders and will enter service on the Oban-Barra/Lochboisdale route in place of two aging vessels in 1989.
Other major new vessels which have come into service since 1979 are the Isle of Arran in 1984, which, as its name suggests, serves Arran, and the Hebrides Isles in 1985, serving the triangular route between Uig in Skye, Tarbert in Harris and Lochmaddy in North Uist. There has also been investment in the smaller vessels which are so important in the short crossings to the smaller islands.
The total of new investment by CalMac in new ships since 1979 is £22 million. Those years have seen a welcome improvement in the standard of ships provided, which is much appreciated by the islanders, as well as by the tourists attracted to visit the islands, in no small part by the modern car ferries provided.
There has also been substantial investment in piers by Caledonian MacBrayne, which has been directly responsible for investment of £6 million in new piers. Of course, it does not own all the piers to which it operates. The Government have also provided substantial grant assistance to local authorities and independent harbour trusts to improve their piers. A special feature, to which my hon. Friend referred, has been the spread of roll-on roll-off facilities cutting out the need for the time-consuming use of side lifts to unload the increasing number of cars carried on CalMac's ships. That is very welcome.
Link spans for roll-on roll-off purposes have been built at Uig, Tarbert, Lochmaddy, Lochboisdale and Colonsay. Work is proceeding on a linkspan at Castlebay in Barra. A total of £22 million has been paid out in pier grants throughout Scotland since 1979.
It may help if I describe the basis on which help is given to Caledonian MacBrayne by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is empowered to give financial assistance to operators of sea transport to the Highlands and Islands by the provisions of the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960. In accordance with that Act, the Secretary of State entered into an undertaking with CalMac and the STG in 1975. The undertaking allows grants to be made to CalMac to maintain and improve sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands.
Those grants take the form of a revenue support grant which covers the annual deficit which the Secretary of State estimates that the company is likely to incur in providing approved services—23 in all in 1988—during a specified period, in practice the company's trading year between 1 January and 31 December. That grant is at present running at about £6 million a year. Capital grants not exceeding 75 per cent. of the actual capital expenditure incurred by the company are provided for pier works. No capital grant assistance is paid towards the cost of ship purchases.
CalMac's financial target is to break even after receipt of the revenue support grant which I have mentioned. Since 1986, a clawback system to recover any surplus of revenue support grant over actual requirements has been in force. The sytem allows the company to retain up to a maximum of £300,000 of any surplus as an incentive to efficiency. CalMac's performance has shown a healthy upturn in recent years and subsidy requirement has fallen in cash and real terms. That is partly due to increased carrying for all types of traffic and, consequently, increased revenue. Although credit must be given to the company for much improved marketing techniques, the other important factor is lower fuel costs. Fares have been held for several years at or below the general level of inflation.
Last night, we discussed the arrangements proposed under the Transport (Scotland) Bill for Caledonian MacBrayne. The principal objective is to maintain at least the present standard of service. It may be helpful if I remind the House of the proposals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Hon. Members cannot discuss legislation in an Adjournment debate. I hope that the Minister will not try to do a rerun of yesterday's debate, because that would be out of order.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall restrict my comments to the investment in CalMac.


For the most part, CalMac services do not make a profit, and a subsidy of about £6 million a year is required. We have always been clear that Caledonian MacBrayne was not a straightforward case for privatisation. The first priority in any arrangements is to guarantee the lifeline services which it provides. It is for that reason that, having studied the issues carefully, we decided that, on the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group, the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne should be transferred to the Secretary of State.
We intend to appoint a new board for the company, which will contain persons with commercial expertise, including some with first-hand knowledge of the islands served and their needs. I feel that that is vital to ensure the responsiveness of the company to its customers.
As a matter of priority, we would look to the new board to examine the possibilities of relocating the headquarters nearer the centre of the area which it serves. Oban seems likely to prove a suitable place for that purpose. We shall ask the new board to explore the possibility of transferring to the private sector the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay-Rothesay routes. I consider it anomalous that CalMac is operating a subsidised service on a similar route to an unsubsidised private operation.
In the longer term, we will expect the board to examine carefully all existing practices in the company's operation with a view to providing more efficient and cost-effective ways of providing at least the present standard of service. No options for the longer term will be excluded, subject to

the overriding proviso that we must ensure at least the present quality of service to the Islands. I consider that, with its own board and independence, CalMac will be well placed to continue and improve on the present level of services.
The views of the ferry users are important, and we intend to continue to consult them. At present, the main means of consultation for ferry users to make their views known are through shipping services advisory committees and the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee. They are doing a good job and that will continue.
In its 1987 manifesto, the Conservative party made it clear that it would continue the substantially increased financial support for the provision and upgrading of ferries and terminals which are vital to the islands. In Scotland, in the period from 1979 to date, the Government have provided grant for ferry pierworks and vessels in Scotland totalling £23·33 million. In the same period, we have also subsidised ferry travel by a total of £78·7 million. For Caledonian MacBrayne, £22 million has been invested in new vessels and £6 million in new piers over the same period. These are substantial sums and demonstrate the importance which the Government attach to investment in shipping services, particularly in Caledonian MacBrayne.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.